
Class. 
Book. 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 
in 2010 witii funding from 
Tine Library of Congress 



littp://www.arcli ive.org/details/evolutionofdominOOporr 




Evolution of the Dominion of 
Canada 

Its Government and Its Politics 



Government Handbooks is a new series of college textbooks 
in government prepared under the joint editorship of 
David Prescott Barrows, Ph.D., Professor of Political Sci- 
ence (on leave) and formerly Dean of the Faculties in the 
University of California, now Colonel in the United States 
Army, and Thomas Harrison Reed, A.B., LL.B., Associate 
Professor of Government in the University of CaHfomia 
and City Manager of San Jose, California. 

The series will provide a handbook for each of the European 
countries, and one on the Government of American De- 
pendencies, treating of the political and administrative 
organization. Each volume will have such maps and 
illustrations as are needed, and will contain an annotated 
bibliography. 

The authors of the different volumes are men who combine 
a thorough knowledge of the subject and a personal ac- 
quaintance with the country and system described. 

The volumes now published are: Evolution of the Dominion 
OF Canada, by Edward Porritt, author of " The English- 
man at Home," " The Unreformed House of Commons," 
and "Sixty Years of Protection in Canada"; Govern- 
ment AND Politics of Switzerland, by Robert C. Brooks, 
Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College; and 
Government and Politics of the German Empire, by 
Fritz-Konrad Kruger, Ph.D., formerly of the Department 
of Political Science, University of California. Some of 
the other volumes in preparation are: Government of 
American Dependencies, by Dr. David Prescott Bar- 
rows; Government of France, by Edward M. Sait, 
Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Political Science, Columbia 
University; and volumes on the governments of Great 
Britain, Japan, Spain, Argenrina, Chile, and Brazil. 

The publishers cordially invite correspondence with regard to 
the Series. 



Edited by David P. Barrows and Thomas H. Reed 

(Botittnment ^anDIi0ofe0 



Evolution of the Dominion 
of Canada 

Its Government and Its Politics 



BY 

EDWARD PORRITT 

AUTHOR OF "the ENGLISHMAN AT HOME," "THE 

UNREFORMED HOUSE OF COMMONS," AND " SIXTY 

YEARS OF PROTECTION IN CANADA" 




YONKERS-ON-HUDSON : : : NEW YORK 

WORLD BOOK COMPANY 
1918 



Our teaching of politics in the universities, excellent upon 
the side of theory, needs to be supplemented by practical 
teaching. ... A political theory, detached from the actual 
conditions of life, is as worthless as the political economy 
of a few decades ago which first assumed a competitive 
market which never existed, and then formulated the laws 
which would presumably operate in it if it did exist. 
Dream politics have been taught too long. What Ameri- 
can students need today is a training which will fit them 
to deal with actual conditions, and to be real vital factors 
in making them better. 



Dr. Robert M. McElroy, President Wilson's 
successor as head of the Department of 
History and Politics at Princeton University, 
at conference of educators, rooms of Bar 
Association, New York, October 14, 1917. 



SEP -3 1918 



\f^/Gfoi 



COPYRIGHT, 19 1 8, BY WORLD BOOK COMPANY 

COPYRIGHT IN GREAT BRITAIN • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 

gh: pedc-1 



/.ro 



©Gi.A50;:{2G7 



av* I 



EDITORS' INTRODUCTION 

DESPITE the increased study given in 
America to modern government, small at- 
tention has been -paid either by college teachers 
or the general public to the political institu- 
tions of the two nations zohich are the imme- 
diate neighbors of the United States, and 
whose territory defines our own national 
boundaries on both the north and the south. 
And yet our relations with these two countries 
occupy a very large place in our political 
history and continue to be among the most 
vital concerns of our nation. In no other 
part of the world is it so important to us to 
have a thorough accord as on the continent of 
North America, and no real understanding is 
possible in the absence of a full knowledge of 
the character and spirit of the public life of 
neighboring states. 
In both cases these neighboring countries have been 
deeply influenced by our political constitu- 
tion and from us both have adopted the federal 
form of government, and many of the common 
American terms and conceptions of republican 
society. As far as the Mexican republic is 
concerned the problem of our relations is 
admittedly a serious and difficult one, made 

[vii] 



EDITORS' INTRODUCTION 

more so by the lack of knowledge arising from 
profound differences in race, speech, and 
inheritance. But in the case of Canada a 
common derivation, a common speech, a com- 
mon literature, and institutions derived from 
common sources, somewhat differently devel- 
oped, have already gone far to produce in both 
countries a common American type of society 
and social philosophy. While Canada has 
learned much from the experience of the 
United States, she is prepared also to teach 
much. In the last fifty years Americans 
have exhibited slight originality in politics 
hut have gained a spirit to profit from the 
experience of others. While in our state 
development, which has added commonwealth 
after commonwealth to the American Union, 
our constitution drafters and lawmakers 
have adhered conservatively to a fixed type 
of political organization, Canada can show 
a successful experience with single-chamber 
legislatures and with centralized adminis- 
trations — types of progressive organizations 
which American state political leaders have 
lacked the courage and vision to attempt. 
The administration of justice, of cities, and of 
local institutions in Canada shows a clear 
superiority over their counterparts in the 
United States, which should arouse grave 
inquiry in the minds of a people no less for- 
tunately situated nor less socially endowed 
[ viii ] 



EDITORS' INTRODUCTION 

than the Canadians. Assuredly a large part 
of American failure in government is attribu- 
table to a vicious form of organization which 
Canada, influenced by sounder conceptions, 
has avoided. 
But undoubtedly the most fruitful contrast be- 
tween government in Canada and government 
in the United States is the different organi- 
zation of the executive power. To the presi- 
dential type of executive, elected for a fixed 
term and above any political control during 
the period of office, which prevails in the United 
States of Mexico, Canada opposes the parlia- 
mentary or responsible executive derived from 
England and adopted generally by repre- 
sentative governments in Europe. It is by 
no means certain which of these two strongly 
contrasted institutions will eventually be pre- 
ferred by a successful republicanism in the 
Western Hemisphere. All the countries of 
America except those which are members of 
the British Empire have followed the example 
of the United States and created presidential 
executives; but with the exception of the United 
States none has wholly escaped dictatorship 
or avoided civil wars occasioned by the abuse 
of presidential power. The late President 
Madero, at the time when he was a candidate 
for the office, informed one of the editors of this 
series that he was convinced that constitutional 
order in Mexico would never be possible unless 

[ix] 



EDITORS' INTRODUCTION 

the Mexican presidency was changed to the 
form of the presidency of France. A consti- 
tutional amendment to effect this change was 
introduced into the Mexican congress in igii, 
after Madero's election. 

Certainly in one respect parliamentary government 
is most impressive, and that is in its capacity 
promptly to determine the popular will upon 
a vital issue. An American presidential 
election seldom, effects this. The issue may 
have already passed into the background before 
the vote can be taken, and the large number of 
controversies pressed upon the American elec- 
torate at the end of each four years confuse 
the main issue and render the decision so 
doubtful that it is rarely found binding upon 
the administration elected to power. 

Contrast such delayed and dubious decision with the 
dissolution of the Canadian parliament over 
the reciprocity issue in 1911, or the election 
of 1917 upon the issue of conscription for the 
war. In each case the controversy was isolated 
and unconfused, a decision was given by the 
nation unmistakably and within the space of 
a few weeks' time, and government was imme- 
diately reorganized in terms of that decision 
and with the designated victors in this contest 
to carry out the people's will. Such a parlia- 
mentary election is a great referendum beside 
which an American election is a halting and 
uncertain decision. 



EDITORS' INTRODUCTION 

It would be impertinent to enlarge upon the qualities 
of the eminent writer who has prepared this 
volume on the Evolution of the Dominion 
of Canada: Its Government and Its Politics. 
Mr. Porritt's long researches and authoritative 
writings in the field of representative govern- 
ment, his broad and decided views upon the 
economic policies of governments, his long 
identification with liberal movements in the 
United States as well as in Great Britain and 
Canada, make his willingness to perform this 
task a cause of congratulation. No one is 
better qualified than he to speak for the 
American people both in Canada and in the 
United States. 

The Editors 



[xi] 



PREFACE 

MORE than once I have been asked why I, 
an Englishman, long resident in the state 
of Connecticut, take so much pleasure in writing 
on Canada. The answer to this question is 
easy to make. From 1896 to 1914, my work, as 
a special correspondent of London, Leeds, and 
Glasgow newspapers, took me as much afield in 
the Dominion of Canada as in the United States, 
as frequently to Ottawa as to Washington. 
Canada has also a peculiar interest for me arising 
out of long devotion to a particular line of study. 
From days of boyhood, when I was serving my 
apprenticeship to newspaper work in England, 
the study of the history and working of British 
political institutions, local, central, and imperial, 
has been one of the joys of my life. 

In Canada, British political institutions have 
been in working since 1758 — working under New 
World conditions. As transplanted in the eigh- 
teenth century they were as nearly as possible 
replicas of English political institutions — as much 
so as the institutions, parliamentary, administra- 
tive, and judicial, that were established by Eng- 
land in Ireland at the end of the fifteenth century. 

In the first half of the nineteenth century 
there were far-reaching reforms in Great Britain. 
The system of parliamentary representation was 

[ xiii ] 



PREFACE 

modernized and made much more democratic 
than it had been for three centuries before 1832; 
and within the decade in which this long overdue 
reform was effected, the attitude of Great Britain 
towards her oversea possessions also underwent 
a great and beneficent change. 

Responsible government was conceded to the 
colonies in which representative government had 
already been established; and with the concession 
of responsible government the political institu- 
tions of Canada went through much the same 
process as the political institutions of the United 
Kingdom, local and central, had done in the 
eighty-two years from 1832 to the beginning of 
the war. 

In no province in Canada is the political civi- 
lization much more than a century and a half old. 
But I have found the study of it as fascinating 
as that of the much older political civilizations of 
England, Scotland, and Ireland. It has presented 
much the same four aspects: (i) how the older 
political institutions came to be; (2) how they 
worked; (3) the forces that impelled their reform 
and liberalization; (4) how the newer and more 
democratic political institutions have worked. 

More ground has been covered in the following 
pages than is usual in books concerned with " 
government and politics. More ground had to be 
covered if the government and contemporary 
politics of the Dominion of Canada were to be 
visualized and comprehended. For conditions 

[xiv] 



PREFACE 

in Canada are peculiar, and peculiar in at least 
four respects. 

These are (i) the conditions under which the 
political development of Canada has proceeded 
since 1763; (2) the relations of Canada with 
Great Britain and the empire; (3) the enormous 
influence which Canada, and in particular the 
united provinces of Upper and Lower Canada — 
1840-1867 — have had on the colonial policy of 
Great Britain since 1840; and (4) the position of 
Canada arising from the former political connec- 
tion of three of the old British North American 
provinces with the thirteen colonies that broke 
away in 1 776-1 783 from Great Britain and 
established themselves as the United States; 
the proximity of Canada to the United States; 
and the influence that the United States has had 
on the political and economic development of 
Canada, and on its relations, political and eco- 
nomic, with Great Britain and the vast empire 
of which Great Britain is the center. 

It is to make Canada understandable, and 
also to make clear its relations with Great Britain, 
and also the potency of American influence upon 
it, that so much attention has been devoted in 
these pages to the evolution of the Dominion, 
and to the National Policy, which, largely owing 
to American example and influence, had its 
origin as far back as 1858. 

Dominion politics from 1867 to the war cannot 
be understood without an adequate comprehen- 

[xv] 



PREFACE 

sion of the conditions, political, racial, religious, 
economic, and social, within Canada, and also of 
some important conditions of external origin 
that brought about Confederation, and the 
gradual development of the Dominion to its 
present-day status of nation. There is also 
needed some comprehension of the history of the 
National Policy, and its various developments, 
and its influence on Canadian politics and on 
the day-by-day life of the people of the Dominion, 
as well as on the relations of the Dominion with 
Great Britain and the other dominions, and with 
the United States. 

To some degree this preface is characterized 
by a personal note. I will end it in the same 
key by adding that my interest 'in the history 
and working of British political institutions has 
been stimulated by the privileges I have enjoyed 
since 1894 at the Connecticut State Library, 
where the collection of material for the study 
of Canadian history and politics is remarkably 
large and complete. In this respect the State 
Library here is excelled, so far as I can recall, 
by only three libraries in England, and all these 
three libraries are in London. 

Edward Porritt 

Hartford, Connecticut, U. S. A. 
May 24, 1918. 



[xvi] 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. The British Oversea Dominions i 

II. The Dominion of Canada — Area, Physical 

Features, and Distribution of Population 13 

III. The Geographic and Economic Divisions 

of the Dominion 21 

IV. The Evolution of the Dominion of Canada, 

1783-1840 59 

V. From the Rebellion to Confeder.\tion, 

1837-1867 89 

VI. The Influences and Forces that Brought 

about Confederation 180 

VII. The Quebec Convention and the British 

North America Act 197 

VIII. The Dominion a Federal Union 211 

IX. The Distribution of Powers between the 

Dominion and Provincial Governments . 223 

X. The Governor-General and Cabinet . . . 247 

XI. Parliament: The Senate 267 

XII. The House of Commons 305 

XIII. The Cabinet: The .King's Privy Council 

for Canada 351 

XrV. Parliament at Work: The House of Com- 
mons 378 

XV. The National Policy of the Dominion . . 430 
XVI. The National Policy and the Develop- 
ment of Canada 469 

XVII. PROVINCLA.L Legislatures and Governments 483 

Sources and Authorities 507 

Index 513 

[ xvii 3 



FULL-PAGE MAPS 

PAGE 

The Dominion of Canada Frontispiece 

Economic Map of the Dominion of Canada 39 

The Two Canadas and the Maritime Provinces .... 69 

The Dominion of Canada in 1867 275 

The Prairie Provinces 473 

The Great Lakes and the Drainage East to Montreal . 475 



[xix] 



Evolution of the Dominion of 

Canada: Its Government 

and Its Politics 

CHAPTER I 

THE BRITISH OVERSEA DOMINIONS 



T 



HE oversea possessions of Great Britain, Extent of 
' other than the Indian Empire — pos- *^® 

1 • 1 • 1 I c 1 British 

sessions which in the year before the Empire 
great war of 1914-1918 were of the aggregate 
area of nearly nine and a half million square 
miles — have been grouped at the colonial ofl&ce 
in London, since 1907, in two divisions. The 
grouping is by political status. It is determined 
by the relations of parliament at Westminster 
and the colonial ofl&ce to each of the forty-eight 
oversea possessions. 

In one group are the dominions, which call for pouticai 
little or no attention from parliament, and, as ^°"p^« 
regards their internal concerns, throw no burdens oversea 
on the colonial ofl&ce. In the other group are p°^^®^- 
the crown colonies and protectorates. These 
receive some attention from parliament, in 
particular when the annual vote for the colonial 
ofl&ce is before the house of commons and the 
house of lords, — a vote on which any aspect of 

[i] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Area and 
popu- 
lation of 
crown 
colonies 



Domin- 
ions 



Respon- 
sible 
govern- 
ment 



crown colony government can be discussed, — 
and the internal and external concerns of these 
colonies are constantly under the supervision of 
the colonial office. 

The dependencies under the supervision of 
the colonial office cover on the roughest of 
estimates an area of two million square miles. 
They have a population of over forty millions, 
among whom — including immigrants as well as 
children of the soil — are to be found, in the 
words of the Book of Daniel, "all people, nations, 
and languages that dwell in all the earth." ^ 

The dominions are (i) the Dominion of 
Canada; (2) the Commonwealth of Australia; 
(3) the Dominion of New Zealand; (4) the 
Union of South Africa; and (5) the Dominion of 
Newfoundland. In all these British oversea 
possessions there are parliaments or legislatures 
elected on democratic franchises, and responsible 
governments. 

The term "responsible government" is a 
comparatively new one in British colonial history. 
It was not of British political terminology — 
certainly not accepted in England as applicable 
to colonial governments — until Great Britain in 
the period between 1837 and 1850 at last began 
to learn the lesson of the American revolution, 
and to concede large powers of self-government 
to the British North American provinces; next 

^ Cf. C. P. Lucas, "The Crown Colonies and Protectorates," 
Manchester Guardian, March 20, 1917. 

[2] 



BRITISH OVERSEA DOMINIONS 



to Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony; 
and finally in 1893 to Natal, 

The term "responsible government," as now 
used in British political science, means that in 
each dominion there is a parliament and an 
executive, called the ministry, which, like the 
ministry in Downing Street for the last two 
centuries, is dependent for its tenure on the 
continuous support of a majority in the house of 
commons. In the oversea dominions, as in the 
United Kingdom, the executive is often described 
as the cabinet. The correct term is the ministry; 
for it frequently happens, especially at West- 
minster, that there are men in the ministry who 
are not of the inner committee of the privy 
council which is termed the cabinet. 

The aggregate area of the five dominions in 
1914 was in round figures seven and a half million 
square miles. The aggregate white population 
was nearly fifteen millions, as compared with 
forty-six millions in the United Kingdom. West- 
ern AustraUa, a state in the Commonwealth of 
AustraUa, and Natal, a province in the Union of 
South Africa, were the last colonies, now of the 
dominions, to receive responsible government. 

Western Australia was a crown colony until 
1890. Natal was in the same class until 1893. 
With these exceptions, electors in all the domin- 
ions, for at least half a century before the world 
upheaval of 1914, had been as free to govern 
themselves in all internal or domestic concerns, 

[3] 



Meaning 
of 

respon- 
sible 
govern- 
ment 



Area and 
popu- 
lation of 
the do- 
minions 



Political 
freedom 
in the 
domin- 
ions 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Protec- 
tive 
tariffs 



Protec- 
tion 
against 
imports 
from the 
United 
Kingdom 



Domin- 
ions and 
imperial 
ezpendi- 
tores 



and in more recent years also in regard to some 
external matters, such as tariff preferences and 
trade conventions, as the parliamentary electors 
of the United Kingdom. 

There were no preferences for the oversea 
dominions in the tariffs of the United Kingdom 
after 1846. From 1859, when the united prov- 
inces of Quebec and Ontario established a 
protective tariff, each colony or province that is 
now of the dominions was free to frame its own 
tariff without regard to the industrial or com- 
mercial interests of the United Kingdom. 

With the exception of Newfoundland, all the 
dominions in the period between 1859 ^^'^ 19^4 
had availed themselves of this liberty to impose 
protective duties on imports from the United 
Kingdom and from other parts of the British 
Empire. It was not until 1897, when the Domin- 
ion of Canada made the innovation, that there 
were any preferences in the tariffs of the domin- 
ions for imports from England, Scotland, and 
Ireland. 

Except for contributions towards the British 
navy from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, 
and Newfoundland, none of which was made 
earlier than 1887, and some contribution for 
several years from the Union of South Africa 
towards the expense of maintaining British 
troops in that dominion, no dominion makes, or 
ever has made, any contribution to the imperial 
exchequer. 

[4] 



BRITISH OVERSEA DOMINIONS 



In the year before the war, the British national 
debt was seven hundred and sixteen milHons 
sterHng. A very large part of the national debt 
that accumulated in the eighteenth century was 
incurred in defending and extending British 
colonial possessions in North America. Some of 
the debt of the nineteenth and twentieth cen- 
turies was also incurred in wars which arose 
directly out of Great Britain's oversea possessions. 
But no dominion has ever paid a contribution to 
the interest or sinking fund of the national debt. 
These have always been a charge on the tax- 
payers of the United Kingdom; and the main- 
tenance of the crown, of the colonial office and its 
staff, and of the foreign office and the diplomatic 
and consular services, have also been charges to 
which no contributions have ever been made by 
the dominions. 

Parliament at Westminster never interferes in 
the domestic concerns of the dominions except 
at the instance of a dominion parliament, when, 
for example, an amendment to the constitution 
of a dominion is desired. The imperial parlia- 
ment has far less to do with the internal concerns 
of the dominions — with those of Canada, for 
instance — than congress at Washington has to do 
with the internal concerns of the several states. 

The presence of the governor-general at Ottawa, 
and the lieutenant-governors at the provincial 
capitals — Charlottetown, Fredericton, Halifax, 
Quebec, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, 

[5] 



No con- 
tributions 
to the 
British 
national 
debt 



No inter- 
ference 
from 
parlia- 
ment at 
West- 
minster 



Gov- 
ernor- 
general 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

and Victoria — all representatives of the king, 
are about the only manifestations in Canada of 
the close connection between the Dominion and 
Great Britain. 

The governor-general is sent out from Lon- 
don. His salary and establishment charges are 
paid by the Dominion. Lieutenant-governors are 
appointed at Ottawa. But while the governor- 
general is appointed by the king, on the recom- 
mendation of the British cabinet, always with 
the approval of the executive of the Dominion, 
no other civil servants are appointed by the 
British government; and there is no interference 
from the colonial office with the internal affairs 
of any of the dominions. 

Crown colonies stand in quite another relation 
to parliament and the colonial office. Many of 
them have elected, or partly elected and partly 
nominated, legislatures, with fiscal and police 
powers and comprehensive law-making powers. 
They have not responsible government as it 
exists in the dominions. Their executives cannot 
be dislodged by an adverse vote in the legislature. 

At the colonial office crown colonies are 
constitutionally grouped into five classes: 
(i) Colonies possessing an elected house of 
assembly and a nominated council, e.g. the 
Bahamas, the Barbados, and Bermuda; (2) col- 
onies possessing a partly elected legislative 
council, the constitution of which, as in British 
Guiana and the island of Cyprus, does not provide 

[6] 



BRITISH OVERSEA DOMINIONS 

for an official majority; (3) colonies possessing a 
partly elected legislative council, the constitution 
of which provides for an official majority, e.g. 
Fiji, Leeward Islands, Jamaica, and Malta; 
(4) colonies and protectorates in which there are 
legislative councils appointed by the crown, e.g. 
British Honduras, Ceylon, East Africa Pro- 
tectorate, Falkland Islands, St. Lucia, St. Vin- 
cent, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Southern Nigeria, 
Straits Settlement, and Trinidad; and (5) 
colonies and protectorates in which there are no 
legislative councils or representative institutions, 
e.g. Ashanti, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Northern 
Nigeria, the northern territories of the Gold 
Coast, St. Helena, Uganda, Weihaiwei, and the 
islands under the protectorate of the Western 
Pacific High Commission. 

Great Britain, at an early stage in the new Attitude 
colonial era — the era that may be dated from °^ ^""^^^ 

J • 1 1 111 Britain 

1840 — determmed that the development of towards 
these crown colonies, most of them tropical *^°^™ 

, . , , colonies 

possessions in which there can never be a pre- 
ponderant white population, was a necessity to the 
British Empire. It was then realized that such a 
development could come only through a partner- 
ship between the white and the colored races. 

Different methods have been adopted in work- 
ing towards the development of these colonies.^ 

^ "Beyond anything, such success as has attended our 
people in dealing with colored races has been the result of 
practical good sense, which has not attempted to drill alien 

[7] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

These methods represent a variety of means to a 
single end. They represent stages of constitu- 
tional and social development adapted to differing 
stages of civilization. The general policy is to 
adapt to every administrative unit of the empire 
the principles that have long been applied in 
working out the political, social, and economic 
welfare of the British nation, and to establish in 
each of the crown colonies the order, stability, 
freedom, and justice that are characteristics of 
British political civilization.^ 

Grants in aid are sometimes made to crown 
colonies by the British parliament. Higher civil 
office with servants, as well as governors, are sent out from 
London; and the supervision by the colonial 

peoples on one uniform pattern or to stamp out diversity, 
but. has utilized the men and the things native to the soil and 
familiar to the peoples — the sultan, the headman, the village 
community; respecting customs and creeds, letting the peoples 
live their own lives in their own way, provided that they abide 
by the general rules which distinguish humanity from bar- 
barism; gradually leavening them with the British spirit of 
freedom rather than inculcating a sense of British domination. 
By eschewing uniformity, by adapting methods to diverse 
peoples of diverse lands in preference to recasting the peoples 
in a strange mold, by ensuring life and property and even- 
handed justice, by letting conditions grow instead of forcing 
them, the English control many millions in smgular content- 
ment and goodwill." — C. P. Lucas, "The Crown Colonies 
and Protectorates," Manchester Guardian, March 30, 1917. 
Cf. Josiah Royce, "Race Questions, Provincialism, -and 
other American Problems," 22-25. 

^ Cf. Sir Charles Bruce, "The Broad Stone of Empire: 
Problems of Crown Colony Administration," I, 34-35. 

[8] 



BRITISH OVERSEA DOMINIONS 



office of these oversea possessions — most of 
them colonies in which the white population is 
largely outnumbered by natives — is usually 
close and continuous. 

The establishment of representative and re- 
sponsible government in the dominions — the 
creation of these autonomous states of the British 
Empire — was a gradual process. It went on 
most quickly and most obviously from 1840, 
when the provinces of Quebec and Ontario were 
united, until 1893. It did not stop in 1.893 when 
responsible government was granted to Natal. 
Other concessions, all tending to autonomy and 
sovereignty, were made after the last of the 
dominions became self-governing. 

The process, going on almost continuously 
since 1840, has been one in which the United 
States, quite unconsciously to most Americans, 
has had a large and easily traceable influence. 
This influence has been due to the political 
development of the United States since 1783, 
and also to the fact that the old British North 
American provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince 
Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, 
and British Columbia, in their formative period, 
were neighbors of the United States, which 
greatly influenced their social, political, and 
economic life, as since 1867 the United States has 
influenced the life of the Dominion of Canada. 

There have been four eras in British colonial 
policy and history since 1776-1783. The first 

[9] 



Develop- 
ment of 
respon- 
sible 
govern- 
ment 



Lifiuenca 
of United 
States on 
Britlsli 
colonial 
policy 



E\"OLLTION OF THE DOMINION OF C\NADA 

extended from 17S3 to the Papineau and Macken- 
zie rebellions in Lower and Upper Canada in 
1837. The second lasted from 1837 to the 
confederation of the British North American 
provinces, which was accomplished between 1S65 
and 1873; and the third was from 1873 to the 
great war. from which began a fourth era in the 
colonial history of the British Empire. 

The process of estabhshing representative and 
responsible government in the dominions — so 
far at anj' rate as it depended on parliament at 
Westminster and the colonial ofl&ce — did not 
begin until the union of the p^o^"inces of Quebec 
and Ontario, an experiment which was a direct 
result of the Papineau and ^lackenzie rebeUions. 
It was only as recently as 1907 that Great Britain, 
in continuation of the process, finally and fully 
conceded to the dominions the much valued 
right to appoint their own plenipotentiaries to 
make their commercial treaties with foreign 
powers. 

In this gradual development of self-govern- 
ment, statesmen of what are now the dominions 
had the largest part. With them, and in par- 
ticular with the statesmen of British North 
America, originated the successive demands 
between 1820 and 1907 for more autonomy and 
for less control by parUament at Westminster 
and by the colonial office, 

Papineau and Mackenzie, in the years from 
1820 to the union of the provinces, risked their 

[lo] 



BRITISH OVERSEA DOMINIONS 

lives in pressing on the British government the 
first of these demands. Gait, the most famous Men who 
of the ministers of finance of the United Provinces, '^^^ 
pressed to success in 1859 the demand for the de^r^ds 
right of the provinces to make their own tariffs 
without regard to the industrial interests of 
Great Britain. 

John A. Macdonald, Alexander Gait, Charles 
Tupper, George Brown, George Etienne Carrier, 
Edward Blake, Wilfrid Laurier, Richard Cart- 
wright, and William S. Fielding pressed other 
demands from the negotiations which preceded 
confederation in 1867 until the right of the 
dominions to make their own immigration laws 
and their own commercial treaties was conceded 
in 1904 and 1907. 

Quite sixty years had elapsed, and there had British 
been the rebellions in Canada, before statesmen ^^*^^" 
at Westminster really began to learn the lesson UsMeam 
of the American revolution. Then they gradually ^^ '^^' 
conceded the demands that were made from the i776-i783 
colonies that are now of the dominions. They 
themselves suggested little. They originated 
few of the developments that have contributed 
to the autonomy of the dominions. But after 
1837 they became more receptive to demands 
from colonial statesmen; and except for Gait's 
demand of 1859, for the right of the provinces to 
make their own tariffs, and some delay in fully 
conceding the demand of the dominions to make 
their own commercial treaties, there was no 

[II] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



New 
policy 
strength- 
ens 

the links 
of empire 



grudging in conceding these demands after the 
lesson of the American revolution had once been 
learned. 

After it was realized that as concessions towards 
autonomy were granted the links binding the 
dominions to Great Britain became stronger 
instead of weaker, there were no compromises 
with the demands. As the result of the colonial 
statesmanship that pressed these demands, and 
the statesmanship at Westminster that conceded 
them, responsible government for all the colonies 
that are now of the dominions had been established 
for at least two decades before 1914; and its 
establishment, and the success which has attended 
it in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South 
Africa, and Newfoundland, is the greatest political 
achievement of people under British rule in the 
140 years between the American revolution ■ and 
the war between Great Britain and her allies and 
the Teutonic powers. 



[12] 



CHAPTER II 

THE DOMINION OF CANADA — AREA, 
PHYSICAL FEATURES, AND DIS- 
TRIBUTION OF POPULATION 



I 



N area and population Canada is the largest Areaof 
of the dominions. Politically and economi- i^® 

• . Dominion 

cally it is, with the possible exception of India, of Canada 
the most interesting of the British oversea pos- 
sessions. It embraces the northern half of the 
North American continent, with its adjacent 
islands in the Arctic Ocean, but exclusive of ■ 
Alaska in the extreme northwest, the island of 
Newfoundland, and the small islands of St. Pierre 
and Miquelon, which are colonies of the French 
republic. The total area of the Dominion is 
3,729,665 square miles. Of this, 309,000 square 
miles are comprised in the arctic islands. 

Newfoundland, the oldest of the British oversea Canada 
possessions in the New World, has an area of ^^ _ 
42,000 square miles; and the aggregate area of foundiand 
these two'^ dominions — Canada and Newfound- 
land — is 3,771,665 square miles. This is a little 
' more than the area of the United States; larger 
by 640,333 square miles than the combined area of 
the commonwealth of Australia and the dominion 
of New Zealand, and not much smaller than the 
aggregate area of all the countries of Europe. 

[13] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Coast- 
lines of 
the 
Dominion 



Hudson 
Bay 



The Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United 
States are much straighter than those of the 
Dominion. The Canadian coastline on both 
oceans is much indented with gulfs and bays — 
particularly the Atlantic coast. These gulfs and 
bays are good feeding and breeding grounds for 
fish. They also aflFord many harbors and havens 
for fishermen, thus giving Canada the most 
extensive sea-fisheries in the world. 

Hudson Bay — a sea 800 miles from north to 
south, and 600 miles in width — is wholly within 
the Dominion. For two centuries Hudson Bay 
had great influence on exploration and trade in 
Canada. With the enormous development of 
grain growing in what are now the provinces of 
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, between 
1898 and 1916, and with the construction *by the 
Dominion government in the years from 1910 
to 1 91 6 of a harbor, with wharfs and elevators 
for the grain trade, at Port Nelson, and a railway 
410 miles long from Le Pas, Manitoba, to this 
new port, Hudson Bay is again of importance in 
the trade and transport economy of the large 
area of Canada that lies between the Great Lakes 
and the Rocky Mountains. 

Canada has a common use with the United 
States of all the Great Lakes — Ontario, Erie, 
Huron, Michigan, and Superior; and also a 
common use of the St. Lawrence from its source 
in Lake Ontario to the Atlantic Ocean. Since 
1854, when by treaty the United States conceded 

[14] 



rence 
River 



AREA, PHYSICAL FEATURES, POPULATION 

the privilege of free navigation of Lake Michigan 
to Canada, and Great Britain conceded to the 
United States the navigation of the St. Lawrence, 
both countries have had joint use of the series of 
magnificent canals — Canadian and American — 
that make navigation possible from Lake Superior 
to tidewater below Montreal. 

The St. Lawrence occupies an even larger st. Law- 
place than Hudson Bay in the history of Canada, 
particularly as regards exploration and trade, 
and incidentally as regards diplomatic relations 
with the United States. In the sixteenth century 
it opened a route for exploration, colonization, 
and trade. It led Cartier, the explorer, in 1535 
to the sites now occupied by the cities of Quebec 
and Montreal. 

In the eighteenth century, after the creation its in- 
of the province of Ontario by the Quebec act of ^"^^^^ 
1 79 1, and in the nineteenth century, it was the deveiop- 
St. Lawrence, with its importance in inland q^^°* 
navigation, that brought into existence the 
Ontario cities of Prescott, Kingston, Hamilton, 
and Toronto; and with the opening of the 
Canadian Pacific Railway from Montreal to 
Vancouver, in 1886, there came into existence, 
as the most western cities on the lakes and St. 
Lawrence route. Port Arthur and Fort William, 
also in Ontario, the largest grain ports in the 
British Empire. 

It is within the power of the Dominion parlia- 
ment to organize territories into provinces. Three 

[15] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Creation 
of new 
prov- 
inces 



PoUttcal 
divisions 
of the 
Dominion 



Yukon 
Territory 



Order In 
which 
provinces 
entered 
Confed- 
eration 



provinces have been so created since Confedera- 
tion. They were carved out of the vast territory- 
lying between Lake Superior and the Rocky 
Mountains, over which the Hudson Bay Com- 
pany ruled from the reign of Charles II until 
1869, when its rights were acquired by purchase 
by the Dominion government. Manitoba was 
created a province in 1870, Saskatchewan and 
Alberta in 1905. 

Since 1905 the Dominion has been politically 
divided into nine provinces and two territories. 
The territories are Yukon and the northwest 
territories. Yukon is bounded on the west by 
Alaska, on the south by British Columbia, on 
the north by the Arctic Ocean, and on the east 
by the northwest territories, which extend to 
the western shore of Hudson Bay. Both terri- 
tories lie north of the sixtieth parallel — the 
northern boundary of all provinces west of 
Ontario. There were in 1916 fewer than 30,000 
people in these territories. 

Only in the Yukon is there any industry — 
that of gold mining, of which Dawson, the political 
capital, is the center. The Yukon is the only 
territory that elects a representative to the house 
of commons at Ottawa. 

The provinces in the order in which they came 
into Confederation are: Quebec, Ontario, Nova 
Scotia, and New Brunswick, 1867; Manitoba, 
1870; British Columbia, 1871; Prince Edward 
Island, 1873; and Saskatchewan and Alberta, 

[16] 



AREA, PHYSICAL FEATURES, POPULATION 



1905. Quebec is the capital of the old French 
province; Toronto of Ontario; Halifax of Nova 
Scotia; Fredericton of New Brunswick; Winnipeg 
of Manitoba; Victoria, on Vancouver Island, of 
British Columbia Charlottetown of Prince 
Edward Island; Regina of Saskatchewan; and 
Edmonton of Alberta. 

These are the political divisions which are 
under provincial or territorial government for 
domestic concerns; each, with the exception of 
the northwest territories, with its quota of 
senators and commoners in the Dominion parlia- 
ment — a quota that as regards the house of 
commons is determined by act of parliament after 
each decennial census. 

The area of each of the nine provinces and of 
the Yukon and northwest territories, the popula- 
tion of each at the census of 191 1, and the number 
of senators and members of the house of com- 
mons allotted to each province and to the Yukon 
by the redistribution act of the Dominion parlia- 
ment of 1914 and as regards the senate by the 
amendment to the British North America act 
of 191 5 ^ are stated in the accompanying table.^ 

As the Dominion embraces almost half the 
North American continent, it has a diversified 
climate. On the Pacific coast, with the ocean on 
one side and lofty mountain ranges on the other, 
the climate is moist and temperate. East of the 

^ British Statutes 5 and 6, George V, c. 45. 
^ Canada Year Book, 1914, 41, 43. 

C17] 



Repre- 
sentation 
in 

parlia- 
ment at 
Ottawa 



Popu- 
lation and 
repre- 
sentation 



Climate 

of 

Canada 

beyond 

the Great 

Lakes 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Province 


Area 
sq. m. 


Population, 
1911 


Representation 
Sen. H.C. 


Quebec 


705.834 

407,262 

21,418 

27,985 

251,832 

355,855 
2,184 
251,700 
255.285 
207,076 
242,224 


2,003,232 

2,523,274 

492,338 

351,889 

455.614 
392,480 

93,728 

492,432 

374,663 

8,512 

18,481 


24 
24 
10 
10 

6 
6 

4 
6 
6 


65 

82 


Ontario 


Nova Scotia 


16 


New Brunswick 

Manitoba 


II 

15 

13 

3 

16 
12 


British Columbia 

Prince Edward Island . 

Saskatchewan 

Alberta 


Yukon Territory 

Northwest Territories . 


I 


Totals 


3,729,665 


7,206,643 


96 


234 





Climate 

from 

Great 

Lakes to 

Atlantic 

Ocean 



Spring 

and 

summer 

In the 

maritime 

provinces 



Rocky Mountains, on the high level plateaus of 
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the north- 
west territories, the climate is characterized by 
extremes of temperature, but is bright, dry, 
bracing, and healthy. 

East of Manitoba the extremes of heat and 
cold are modified by the Great Lakes. In the 
valleys of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence a cold 
but bright and exhilarating winter is followed 
by a long and warm summer. The Maritime 
Provinces, lying between the same parallels of 
latitude as France, and with shores washed by 
the Atlantic, are equally favored in climate. 

The opening of spring in the Maritime Prov- 
inces is usually a little later than in Ontario 
or in the prairie provinces, and a little earlier 
than in the lower St. Lawrence valley. On the 
other hand summer lingers longer, especially in 
the Annapolis valley. Summer in the Maritime 
Provinces is not as a rule quite so warm as in 

L18] 



AREA, PHYSICAL FEATURES, POPULATION 

western Canada. Great heat Is seldom ex- 
perienced, except very occasionally at inland 
places in New Brunswick. 

From Alberta to the Maritime Provinces there snowand 
is in the winter much snow. It lies deep over "® 
this area from November or December until tages 
March. But the value of this covering of snow 
cannot be overestimated. It protects the roots 
of trees and herbage during the severe weather, 
and east of the Great Lakes it also greatly facili- 
tates the lumber industry. 

The Great Lakes never freeze over, but ice ice- 
closes the harbors from the middle of December *^'°®®*^ 
until the beginning of April. The average date 
of the closing of navigation on the St. Lawrence 
at Montreal is December i6, and of its opening 
April 21. Harbors in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are 
likewise closed by ice during the winter months. 

On the Bay of Fundy and the coast of Nova Winter 
Scotia, harbors are open all the year round. ^^^ °* 

fifl.stfim 

Halifax and St. John, by this freedom from ice, Canada 
obtain their importance as the Atlantic winter 
ports of the Dominion. In particular they owe to 
this great advantage over the St. Lawrence ports 
their constantly increasing importance on the 
national grain route — lake, canal, and rail — 
which stretches from Port Arthur and Fort 
WiUiam on Lake Superior to the Atlantic sea- 
board. 

The coal fields and coal deposits of the Domin- 
ion are the most extensive and best known of its 

[19] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Coal 
areas 
and the 
distri- 
bution of 
iwpu- 
lation 



mineral resources. The known area underlain 
by workable coal beds is nearly 30,000 square 
miles. 

Notwithstanding the vastness of these deposits, 
the total quantity of coal annually mined in 
Canada is less than half of the country's con- 
sumption. The coal fields are found principally 
in the coast provinces — Nova Scotia, New 
Brunswick, and British Columbia — and in 
Alberta. The central provinces, Ontario and 
Quebec, — in which in 1916 four sevenths of the 
total population was concentrated, — are without 
coal. They are nearer to Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
and Indiana than to any of the coal-producing 
provinces; and consequently they find it more 
economical to draw their supplies of coal — 
bituminous as well as anthracite — from these 
American coal fields. American coal in large 
quantities is also imported by the prairie prov- 
inces. Anthracite, and some special bituminous 
coals from Pennsylvania, are used as far west of 
Lake Superior as Winnipeg and Brandon. 



[20] 



CHAPTER III 



I 



THE GEOGRAPHIC AND 
ECONOMIC DIVISIONS OF THE 
DOMINION 

T has been customary since Confederation to Four 



group the provinces geographically and eco- ^^° j^^ 
nomically. There have been, since the prairie and 
provinces were organized, four of these geographic ^^^j^g 
and economic divisions. All of them are well 
marked, and generally accepted in poHtical and 
economic understanding. 

L The Maritime Provinces 

In one group, the oldest and a group that is Provinces 
tenacious of its British traditions and its local ^°^ 
political history, are the Maritime Provinces — sea" 
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward 
Island. These three provinces are often collo- 
quially described in parliament and in the press 
as the provinces "down by the sea." 

Before Confederation these provinces had 
many common interests, so many in fact that 
in 1864 there was a movement for a legislative before 
union. This movement culminated in an inter- ^°g^^^ 
provincial conference at Charlottetown, which had 
the effect of greatly facilitating Confederation. 

Before Confederation the Maritime Provinces 

[21] 



Mari- 
time 
provinces 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Old free- 
trade 
provinces 



Common 
interests 
of the 
provinces 

down 
by the 
sea" 



Char- 
acter- 
istics of 
people of 
Quebec 
and 
Ontario 



had tariffs exclusively for revenue. They had 
not followed the example of the united provinces 
of Ontario and Quebec in adopting protective 
tariffs in 1859, chiefly because they drew their 
manufactured goods from England, and there 
were no factories in the Maritime Provinces to be 
aided by protection. For thirty years after 
Confederation the people of these provinces were 
opposed to the protectionist policy of the Ottawa 
government, and also to the large expenditures 
on the canals of Quebec and Ontario, from which 
they then derived no direct advantage. 

In later years their common interests have 
been shipping and fishing, lumber and coal 
industries, agriculture, and the general economic 
interests of a long-settled and sparsely distributed 
maritime population, much less affected by the 
cosmopolitan immigration of the years from 1898 
to 1914 than any other division of the Dominion. 

II. Central Canada 

Quebec and Ontario form the second of the 
geographic and economic groups. These prov- 
inces constitute what is known as central 
Canada. In general each is inhabited by people 
of a different race, language, and religion and of 
differing philosophies of life. Quebec is peopled 
by French-Canadians, who are Roman Catholics, 
and unambitious and content with the domestic 
joys afforded by their homes, their occupations, 
their religion, and their province. 

[22] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 



Ontario is inhabited by people of English or 
Scotch origin, speaking English, of the Protestant 
religion, energetic and ambitious, and nearer in 
temperament and character to Americans of 
New England or of the middle west than to 
their eastern neighbors in Quebec, or the present 
generation of people in England or Scotland. 

There is more or less antagonism between these 
two peoples — an antagonism which can be traced 
back almost to the American revolution. Despite 
these differences in race, language, religion, and 
outlook on life, and despite the antagonism 
which not infrequently manifests itself at Ottawa, 
and at the provin,cial capitals of Toronto and 
Quebec, no other provinces in the Dominion 
have achieved so much in common politically, 
or have so much in common economically, as 
Ontario and Quebec. 

It was these provinces that made most of the 
constitutional history of Canada from the Quebec 
act of 1 79 1 to Confederation in 1867. In this 
respect no other provinces in any of the dominions 
have more beneficently affected the colonial 
policy of Great Britain. The modern era of 
colonial policy, the fruits of which were the 
loyal, unstinting, and whole-hearted support of 
Great Britain in the war with Germany, had its 
beginnings between 1837 and 1845 in what are 
today the central provinces of the Dominion. 

Ottawa, the Dominion capital since Confedera- 
tion, is situated just within the eastern boundary 

[23] 



Economic 
interests 
in 
common 



Ontario 
and 

Quebec 
and the 
new era 
in British 
colonial 
policy 



Ottawa 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



A pro- 
vincial 
capital 
becomes 
the 

capital of 
the 
Dominion 



Ottawa : 
its 

remote- 
ness from 
the coast 
cities 



Newer 
cities of 
the 
Dominion 



of Ontario, with only the stately and quick- 
flowing Ottawa River dividing it from Hull, the 
most western city of Quebec. 

The original plan was that Ottawa should be 
the capital of the united provinces of Ontario 
and Quebec. This was the design when it was 
selected by Queen Victoria in 1859. But Con- 
federation of all the British provinces on the 
mainland of North America, long desirable and 
long inevitable, was coming into being as the 
beautiful parliament building at Ottawa was 
rising on its foundations on the bluffs above the 
widening out of the Ottawa River, and within a 
year from the completion of the parliament 
building the senate and house of commons of 
the Dominion of Canada were in possession. "^ 

From Halifax to Ottawa the distance by rail 
is 940 miles; from Charlottetown it is 914 miles; 
and from St. John it is 597 miles. From Victoria 
to Ottawa, by the Canadian Pacific Railway, 
the distance is 2867 miles; from Vancouver 2783 
miles; from Edmonton, 2145 miles; from Regina, 
1656 miles; and from Winnipeg, 1299 miles. 

Halifax, Charlottetown, and St. John, and 
Quebec, Montreal, Kingston, Toronto, and Hamil- 
ton, were cities of commercial importance in the 
days of the old British North American provinces. 
Only two cities west of the Great Lakes, Winnipeg 
and Victoria, were in existence at Confederation. 
Vancouver was a creation of the Canadian 
1 Cf. J. D. Edgar, "Canada and Its Capital," 51-52. 

[24] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 

Pacific Railway after 1886. Regina and Edmon- 
ton were only Hudson Bay Company posts until 
the Canadian Pacific Railway — the first of the 
transcontinental railways — was pushed across 
the prairies and over the mountains of British 
Columbia. 

Ottawa is not conveniently situated as the Amonu- 
capital of the Dominion. As population increases ^g*"^"* 
it may not remain as the capital. But for Briash 
fifty years Ottawa has served not only as the *^°^,°^^ 
capital of the Dominion, but also as the most 
outstanding monument in the empire of the new 
colonial policy of Great Britain, which began 
with the union of Ontario and Quebec. Ottawa 
was the creation of these provinces, and the 
Dominion succeeded to it at Confederation. 
Its early history, its transformation from the 
little lumber camp and distributing center of 
Bytown into the most important political capital 
in the overseas dominions, belongs jointly to 
Ontario and Quebec. 

A share in molding the newer colonial policy Manu- 
of Great Britain is not all that the provinces of j^^*"*^ 
Quebec and Ontario have in common. There of 
are present-day material advantages of enormous ^^^^ 
value, peculiar to central Canada, which these Quebec 
two provinces possess in common. 

Manufacturing in the two decades that pre- 
ceded the great war had been developed in Nova 
Scotia and New Brunswick. Nova Scotia is the 
largest iron and steel producing province; and 

[25] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

like New Brunswick it has several cities in which 
the cotton and woolen industries are established. 
Some large indigenous industries are established 
at Winnipeg, Brandon, Regina, Calgary, and 
other cities of the prairie provinces. But Ontario 
and Quebec, Ontario in particular, are the manu- 
facturing provinces of Canada. The manufac- 
tures of these provinces are shipped east and 
west — to the Maritime Provinces, and to all 
the provinces west of the Great Lakes. 
A pre- The predominance of the central provinces in 

domi- ^Yie manufacturing economy of the Dominion, 
that is which must necessarily be theirs for generations 
abiding ^^ come, is easily explained. Quebec and Ontario 
were the British North American provinces of 
largest population from 1840 to Confederation, 
and from Confederation to the war. All through 
the nineteenth century Ontario attracted more 
immigration from England and Scotland than any 
of the other provinces. It first attracted immi- 
grants to its vacant lands; and as these were 
gradually cleared and occupied and cities de- 
veloped, it attracted immigrants to its farms and 
to its cities. 
Quebec Immigration from the United Kingdom went 

^^^^ only to the cities of the French province — to 

stream . ,_, , 

of jmmi- Quebec, Three Rivers, and Montreal. The rural 
gration economy of the province — its habitants speak- 
ing only the French language, and socially and 
industrially sufficient unto themselves, and also 
the religious and at times political supremacy 
[26: 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 

of the Roman Catholic Church — repelled rather 
than attracted newcomers from England and 
Scotland. Those who did not establish them- 
selves in Montreal or Quebec pushed farther 
west to Ontario, where social conditions were 
more akin to those they had left behind. 

Until Manitoba was opened for settlement by When 
the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway ^^^ 
across the province in 1884, and in fact until Ontario 
after the great immigration propaganda of the 
Dominion was begun in 1898, when an Eng- 
lishman or Scotchman told his neighbors in the 
old country that he was emigrating to Canada 
it usually meant that he was going to Ontario. 

There was some immigration into the Maritime A 
Provinces in the nineteenth century. Between ^^"^^ 
1812 and 1828, 25,000 Highlanders from Scotland some 
settled in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia; and Gaelic °^^i^- 
is still the language of thousands of men and char- 
women in Nova Scotia. But the main stream of fl*®*^" - 

Istlcs or 

immigration until the end of the nineteenth cen- England 
tury, both from England and Scotland, was to 
the St. Lawrence ports of Quebec and Montreal, 
and thence into wide and beautiful Ontario, a 
province that in some parts is more like the 
midland and western counties of England than any 
other part of Canada. 

The needs of a large and growing population Begin- 
gave the first impetus to manufacturing in ^°! 
Ontario and also in Montreal, which, as regards facturing 
trade and commerce, is nearly as closely inter- Ontario 

[27] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Raw 

materials 
from the 
United 
States 



Influence 
of the 
protec- 
tionist 
tariffs 
of the 
United 
States 



Coal and 
ore from 
the United 
States 



woven in the life of Ontario as it is in that of the 
old French province. This impetus came in the 
days of small undertakings in manufacturing, 
in the days when $10,000 was a large capital for 
a manufacturing enterprise. 

Some raw materials for manufacturing were to 
hand in Ontario. What was lacking could easily 
be procured from the United States, on which 
Canadian manufacturers, in the Maritime Prov- 
inces, as well as in Ontario and Quebec, have, 
from the first, drawn largely for raw materials, 
and also for partly finished materials to be 
carried further in the process of manufacturing. 

The United States has influenced manufac- 
turing in central Canada, and through central 
Canada in the Maritime Provinces, in three 
distinct ways. In the forties and fifties of the 
last century, American manufacturing develop- 
ment, and particularly the development of New 
England, served as an example to Canadians. 
The adoption by the United States in 1842 of a 
frankly protectionist policy impelled the united 
provinces of Ontario and Quebec to the adoption 
of a similar fiscal policy in 1 858-1 859; and since 
1879 successive increases in the protectionist 
tariffs at Washington have been followed by 
increases in the tariffs at Ottawa. 

Finally it was possible for the manufacturers 
of Ontario and Quebec to draw on the United 
States for coal and ore, for cotton and other raw 
materials, and for partly finished materials at 

[28] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 



less cost in transport than from any other source 
of supply. 

The transport system of these two provinces 
— their railways and their lake and canal naviga- 
tion systems — are so similar to these systems in 
the states that border on the lakes, the St. Law- 
rence, and the boundary line, and they are so 
interwoven through the system of bonding 
traffic crossing and recrossing the border, that 
only the customs houses recall the fact that 
Ontario and Quebec are provinces of Canada, 
while Maine, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, 
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan are states 
of the American republic. 

There will be more development of manu- 
facturing in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. 
This is inevitable in provinces endowed by 
nature with much water power, abundantly 
supplied with lumber and coal, and to which ore 
is contiguous, as it is at Belle Island, Newfound- 
land, for the manufacture of iron and steel on a 
large scale. The war brought two modern steel 
shipbuilding plants into existence in Nova Scotia. 
There will be further development of manu- 
facturing in the prairie provinces. But the 
absence of many of the raw materials of manu- 
facture, and the long distances that materials 
must be carried, will always seriously handicap 
manufacturing in the part of Canada that lies 
beyond the Great Lakes. 

The hold that central Canada has secured on 

[29] 



Transport 

systems 

of 

Ontario 

and 

Quebec 



Con- 
ditions 
that 

favor the 
central 
provinces 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Ontario 
long a 
protec- 
tionist 
province 



Trade 

relations 

of the 

central 

provinces 

with 

Canada 

beyond 

the 

Great 

Lakes 



National 

grain 

route 



the manufacturing economy of the Dominion is, 
therefore, Hkely to be as permanent as the hold 
that Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the counties 
of the black country, secured in the manufactur- 
ing economy of England in the earlier years of 
the industrial era. 

The protective policy of Canada originated in 
Ontario. Before Confederation it was Ontario 
that maintained the protective system of the 
United Provinces. Since Confederation, and 
especially since 1897, protection has been sup- 
ported by the mining and manufacturing com- 
munities of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. 
But its stronghold today, as for sixty years 
before the war, is in Ontario; and this fact 
explains the sharp political division between 
central Canada and Canada beyond the Great 
Lakes. 

In comparison with Ontario and Quebec, the 
prairie provinces have few manufacturing in- 
dustries. There is no great staple industry 
except flour milling; and the people of these 
provinces, who are mostly grain growers, must, 
for the manufactures that they need, pay the 
higher prices which the thirty-five and forty-two 
and a half per cent duties of the Dominion tariff^ 
enable the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec 
to exact. 

Predominance in manufacturing, and the lion's 
share of the benefits of the protective tariff^, are 
not the only material advantages due to geo- 

[30] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 

graphical, economic, and political conditions that 
Ontario and Quebec enjoy. British Columbia, 
and all the provinces east of the Great Lakes 
with the exception of Prince Edward Island, are 
largely dependent on the grain-growing provinces 
for their prosperity, and in particular for their 
industrial development. With the extension of 
grain growing in the prairie provinces there is a 
larger call for the lumber, coal, fish, and fruit of 
British Columbia; for the services of lake steamers 
that are on the Canadian register; for the services 
of the three railway companies that handle grain 
en route from the lower lake ports to tidewater; 
for the loanable capital that is concentrated in 
Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax; and also for 
the output of the factories of Ontario, Quebec, 
New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. 

An abounding harvest in the prairie provinces The 
— a harvest in which the crop greatly exceeds ^ff^<=* <>' 
that of the preceding year — beneficently affects harvest 
the payroll of every factory from Fort William *° ^® 
to Sydney and Halifax, and also the turnover of growing 
nearly every wholesaler and retailer in these four f"^" 

f ■' _ _ inces 

provinces east of the Great Lakes. But in addi- on 
tion to enjoying by far the larger share of the p*y ""^ 
trade in factory-made goods of the prairie prov- the Great 
inces, both of the central provinces — Ontario ^^^^ 
and Quebec — derive much profit from the 
transport business of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, 
and Alberta — from the carriage westward of 
machinery and other manufactured goods, and 

[31] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



The 

transport 

business 

of 

Ontario 

and 

Quebec 



the transport eastward to tidewater on the St. 
Lawrence and to the ports of the Maritime Prov- 
inces of grain and flour from the west. 

Three provinces west of the Great Lakes, and 
two of the five provinces east of the Lakes, all 
need the transport services of Quebec and Ontario. 
Grain bulks largest in the transport business of 
the central provinces; and it is for this reason 
that Ontario and Quebec, for thirty years before 
the war, were more interested than any of the 
other provinces east of the Lakes in the continued 
efforts to divert as much as possible of the western 
grain from Buffalo to Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, 
St. John, and Portland. 

All the wheat of the grain-growing provinces 
used in Canadian flour mills east of the Great 
Lakes, and all the wheat for export across the 
Atlantic, passes through some one of the thirty 
elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William. 
So far in the history of the western grain trade, 
since its beginning in 1884, in each navigation 
season more than half the wheat has been carried 
to the seaboard from these Ontario ports on 
Lake Superior by way of Buffalo.^ The payment 
for its handling and transport, after it had left 
the Canadian elevators at the head of the Great 
Lakes, accrued to owners of American lake 
steamers, American elevators, and American 
railways. 

^ Cf. Annual Report of the Council of the Quebec Board 
of Trade, 1917, p. 63. 

[32] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 



The rest of the wheat for export is shipped 
from Montreal, Quebec, Portland, St. John, and 
Halifax — most of it from Montreal. Wheat for 
Canadian shipment is carried direct from Port 
Arthur and Fort William over the lake and 
canal route, or it is carried to Canadian transfer 
ports on the lower lakes — Huron or Erie — 
and thence by Canadian railways or canals to 
Montreal. 

There is in normal times no reciprocity between 
the Dominion and the United States in lake 
navigation.^ Canadian vessels are not permitted 
by the United States navigation laws to carry 
cargoes from one American port to another; and 
vessels on the United States register are not per- 
mitted by the navigation code of the Dominion 
to carry cargoes from one Canadian port to 
another. Except for occasional cargoes from 
Ogdensburg, a port on the St. Lawrence in the 

^ In the lake navigation season of 1917, for the first time 
in the history of Canada, there was reciprocity in lake naviga- 
tion. Canadians had desired this reciprocity since the old 
navigation code of Great Britain — the code that had its 
beginnings in the seventeenth century — was remodeled and 
made much less exclusive in 1847. Washington, however, 
declined all overtures for reciprocity in lake or coastwise 
navigation from 1847 until April, 1917, when the United States 
joined France and Great Britain and the other allies in the 
war against the Teutonic Powers. Reciprocity in lake 
shipping was then established as a war measure; and also as 
a war measure there was a suspension of the convention of 
1818 under which the United States and Great Britain agreed 
that no war vessels should be built or maintained on the lakes. 

[33] 



Grain 
en route 
to the 
Atlantic 
seaboard 
of the 
Dominion 



No 

recipro- 
city in 
lake 
navi- 
gation 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Impor- 
tance to 
the cen- 
tral 

provinces 
of the 
grain- 
handling 
business 



The port 
equip- 
ment of 
Montreal 



Shipyards 
of the 
central 
provinces 



State of New York, all the grain from Port Arthur 
and Fort William that goes to Montreal, whether 
directly by lake and canal, or by way of Ontario 
transfer ports, goes in vessels that are on the 
Dominion or the British register. 

The transport business in this Lake Superior 
and Montreal grain trade is thus secured to 
Canadian vessels. Ontario ports on the lower 
lakes get the transfer and storage business. 
Those divisions of the Grand Trunk, the Canadian 
Pacific, and the Canadian Northern railways that 
are in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec get 
the railway haul. 

Montreal, with the largest and best grain- 
handling equipment of any tidewater port in the 
world, gets the tidewater terminal elevator 
business; and in normal times the transport of 
grain from Port Arthur and Fort William to 
Montreal — elevating, storing, and shipping it 
thence overseas — puts ten cents a bushel into 
the treasuries of the commission, transport, and 
elevator companies which handle the business.^ 

Most of this ten cents — a sum which does not 
include oversea freight charges — goes in pay- 
ment for labor, for services rendered to the 
shippers of grain. It represents mainly payments 
in wages to men who are employed on the lake 
vessels, on the railways, and in the elevators. 
It is this grain business also that finds work for 

^ Cf. Cowie, "The Transportation Problem in Canada," 
47. 

[34] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 

the shipyards of Ontario and Quebec, for the 
two large and well-equipped yards on the St. 
Lawrence, and for the yards on the lakes at 
Kingston, Toronto, Collingwood, and Port Arthur. 

There has been an increase in the wheat crop share 
of the prairie provinces almost every year since "g^^j^ 
1884. In the grain year 1915-1916, these prov- prov- 
inces had 264,000,000 bushels of wheat for ex- ^^^ 
port. Much less than half of this wheat went business 
oversea from Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, and St. ^tionai 
John. The greater part went by way of Buffalo, grain 
and was shipped across the Atlantic from Boston, "" ® 
New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Newport 
News. 

The constantly increasing production of wheat Canals 
in Canada beyond the Great Lakes, the value of °g^^ 
the transport business to Ontario and Quebec, prov- 
and the long-established and successful competi- ^^^^ 
tion of the Buffalo route, explain why, since 1871, 
it has been the continuous policy of the Dominion 
government to improve the Canadian canals on 
the national grain route.^ The aim of the govern- 
ment at Ottawa in constructing the lock and the 
canal at Sauk Ste. Marie, Ontario; in deepening 
and enlarging the canals; in providing a fourteen- 
foot waterway in the Welland and St. Lawrence 
canals; in creating a well-equipped transfer port 
at Colborne at the Lake Erie entrance to the 
Welland Canal; and in aiding harbor boards to 

^ Cf. Canal Commission, Sessional Papers, No. 54, 1871, 
17-35- 

C35] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

equip the tidewater ports with ample elevator 
accommodation and grain-handling facilities, was 
to reduce the time and the cost of lake and canal 
transport. 

For forty years before the great war, canal and 
port improvements, conceived on a generous 
scale, were the continuous policy of both Con- 
servative and Liberal governments at Ottawa. 
Its aim was to divert as much as possible of the 
export grain business of the prairie provinces 
from Buffalo, to the St. Lawrence canals and the 
Atlantic ports of the Dominion. In this policy, 
as in the policy of deepening the world-famous 
ship channel from Montreal to Quebec, the 
government at Ottawa, regardless of party com- 
plexion, always had the support of central Canada. 

Finally in this examination of the geographical 
and economic conditions of Ontario and Quebec — 
conditions which must be understood, if there is 
to be any understanding of contemporary poli- 
tics of the Dominion — there is the fact that 
Montreal and Toronto are the financial centers of 
Canada. These cities are to Canada what New 
York, Boston, and Chicago are to the United 
States. The head offices of the great banks — 
banks with scores of branches in every province — 
are in Montreal and Toronto. Those of the 
Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific railways 
are in Montreal. 

The great coal companies of Nova Scotia and 
Alberta, the iron and steel manufacturing com- 

[36] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 

panies of Nova Scotia and Ontario, and the tex- 
tile companies whose mills are established in the 
industrial cities of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, 
and New Brunswick, and most of the companies 
engaged in interprovincial trade, have their 
headquarters in either Montreal or Toronto. 
There are also stock and grain exchanges in 
both cities. 

Men who are of bank and trust company Finance 
directorates, or concerned in the finance of rail- *°*|„ 

' . politics 

ways and other transport companies, or are 
financiers of manufacturing undertakings, have 
much influence in Dominion politics. These 
men constitute the governing class of Canada, 
and their influence is much more potent at 
Ottawa than similar influence is at Westminster. 
It is greater and more obvious than at Washing- 
ton; ^ for the tariff and transport policies of the 
Dominion government more frequently originate 
in Toronto or Montreal than with the cabinet at 
Ottawa. 

The influence thus exercised by Montreal and Govem- 
Toronto, and at times by Halifax, the third *°^ 
financial center, is notorious and of long standing; Canada 
and when a rural newspaper with a circula- 
tion among farmers or grain growers alludes to 
Canadian barons, the editor has in mind not men 
who are of the lower tier of the British peerage, 
but the men who are dominant in the offices of 
the great corporations which have their head- 

^ Cf. Clarus Ager, "The Farmer and the Interests," 68. 

[37] 



The 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

quarters in Montreal or Toronto.^ These two 
financial centers, and the social life incident to 
them, account almost as much as the long-estab- 
lished predominance of Ontario and Quebec in 
politics, in manufacturing, and in transport, as 
well as in journalism and literature, for the 
distinction held by central Canada in the political, 
economic, and social Ufe of the Dominion. 

III. The Prairie Provinces 

What is known by railway men as "the Bridge " 
Bridge separates the prairie provinces from the older, 
settled area of Ontario. The Bridge stretches 
from North Bay, Ontario, an important railway 
center on the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific 
systems, to Kenora, on the Lake of the Woods, 
also in Ontario, a lake of singular beauty that is 
part of the eastern boundary of Manitoba.^ The 
distance from North Bay to Kenora is 920 miles. 
The journey over the Bridge takes twenty-one 
hours on the Imperial Limited, the fastest train 
that travels over the Canadian Pacific from 
Montreal to Vancouver. 

1 Cf. "Canada's Aristocracy," Grain Growers' Guide, 
Winnipeg, June 25, 1913; "Our Canadian Barons," Free 
Press, Forest, Ontario, April 27, 1916. "The east is the seat 
of the great financial and transport interests, which are 
shining marks for many a western brick." — " East and West," 
Quarterly Journal of the Canadian Bankers' Association, 
Montreal, June, 1917. 

2 Cf. " East and West," ^arterly Journal of the Canadian 
Bankers' Association, Montreal, June, 1917. 

[38] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Physical 
charac- 
teristics 
of the 
Bridge 



Canada's 

wilder- 

aess 



In these 900 miles of wilderness, where the soil 
is so poor as to warn off the settler, there are 
only three cities. Fort William, Port Arthur, and 
Sudbury. These cities in 191 6 had an aggregate 
population of not more than 35,000. Besides 
these there are few settlements large enough to 
warrant being described as villages. The country 
is wild and picturesque. There are indentations 
of Lake Superior of bewitching charm, small 
lakes, rivers, rocks, and hills. 

In winter the temperature on parts of the 
Bridge — at White River and at Chapleau, for 
instance — is lower than in any other part of any 
province of the Dominion. In summer and 
autumn the climate is superb. It is as clear and 
exhilarating as anywhere on the North American 
continent; and there are parts of the Bridge that 
are famous all over the world for their fishing 
and hunting. 

For the most part, however, the Bridge is a 
wilderness with only the railway and passing 
railway trains to remind one of the civilization 
to the east and west of it. There can be no 
country anywhere in the British oversea domin- 
ions that is crossed by a railway, except the 
Karoo in Cape Colony, that yields less traffic — 
passenger or freight — than the Bridge, if Sud- 
bury, Port Arthur, and Fort William are left out 
.of the count. 

The Bridge was the great barrier to the opening 
out and development of the prairie country at 

[40] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 



the time of Confederation. It had a value for Barrier 
the Hudson Bay Company, which before 1869 •'etw^^'* 
was intent only on exploiting the fur trade, and west 
unloading its imported wares — 'textiles, hard- 
ware, and tobacco — on the Indians; and conse- 
quently did not desire civilization or community 
life in its dooryard. It remained a barrier against 
immigration and commerce until 1884, when 
after fifteen years of effort, first by the Dominion 
government, and later by the Canadian Pacific 
Railway Company, railway communication was 
established between Winnipeg and Port Arthur. 

The wilderness from North Bay to Kenora is its 
still a barrier. It is a barrier that to a considerable *°^"^°'=® 

on 

extent still isolates western Canada. It adds to economic 
the cost of living in the prairie provinces. Com- 
bined with a fiscal system that originated with 
and that favors Canada east of the Great Lakes, 
it makes the prairie provinces the most expensive 
part of the British Empire in which to dwell; 
for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta have 
no forests available for lumber, little manufac- 
turing, and good coal is mined only in the far 
northwest of Alberta. 

Canadian flour in normal times is cheaper in Cost of 
England than it is in the prairie provinces. Jj^^ 
Canadian bacon, for which Canadians pay from prawe 
twenty-two to twenty-eight cents a pound, was ^™^' 
sold in England before the war for from fifteen 
to twenty cents a pound. It is the same with 
fish, lumber, or any commodity that is the 

[41] 



condi- 
tions 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Railways 
across 
the 
Bridge 



Area 
of the 
grain- 
growing 
provinces 



Where 
grain 
elevators 
begin to 
break the 
sky line 



product of the natural industries of Canada; and 
none of the extra price which Canadians pay 
goes to the grain growers of the prairie provinces.^ 
The pohtical factors which largely account for 
these economic conditions in the prairie provinces 
are determined east of the Bridge, in Toronto and 
Montreal. 

Despite the fact that since 1914 the Bridge has 
been crossed by two railways in addition to the 
pioneer Canadian Pacific, — the National Trans- 
continental, that extends from Moncton, New 
Brunswick, to Winnipeg, where it joins the 
Grand Trunk Pacific line to Prince Rupert, 
British Columbia, and the Canadian Northern, 
which connects all four western provinces with 
Toronto, Montreal, and Quebec, — it still ob- 
viously influences political, economic, and social 
conditions in the prairie provinces. 

These provinces, sharing in common all the 
physical characteristics that the word "prairie" 
suggests, extend from the Lake of the Woods to 
the Rocky Mountains. From east to west they 
stretch over a distance of looo miles. North- 
ward they extend from the boundary of Dakota 
and Montana to the sixtieth parallel. 

On the east the grain-growing country begins 
at Whitemouth, on the Canadian Pacific Railway, 
390 miles west of Port Arthur, and 50 miles east 
of Winnipeg. Stony Plain and Nordegg, in 
Alberta, were in 191 6 the most northwesterly 
1 Harpell, "Canadian National Economy," 12. 
[42] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 

towns in the grain-growing area. Nordegg is 
1475 miles from Port Arthur and 2951 miles 
from St. John, the winter grain port of the Do- 
minion. At every railway station in the country 
from Whitemouth to Nordegg there are small 
elevators — "line" or "country" elevators as 
they are termed, to distinguish them from ter- 
minal and transfer elevators. 

In winter, when lake navigation is closed, grain a grain 
is carried from these interior elevators to Fort ^°^'^ 

3000 

William and Port Arthur. From these ports it miles 
is taken over the three transcontinental railways ^°^^ 
to Montreal, thence to Halifax, St. John, and 
Portland, Maine; so that at some seasons of the 
year grain from the prairie provinces is moving 
to tidewater over an all-Canadian route that is 
3000 miles long. 

In the fifteen years that preceded the war. Home- 
out of the three million immigrants who arrived ^^^ ^'^ 
in Canada from the United Kingdom, from the grain 
United States, and from the countries of Europe, ^"^''^^s 
one and a quarter millions went into the prairie 
provinces; ^ and of the immigrants who went 
into these provinces to acquire homesteads from 
the Dominion government, or to buy land from 
the Hudson Bay Company or the railway com- 
panies, ninety out of every hundred had em- 
barked in grain growing. 

The outbreak of the war, coming as it did in 
a period of industrial and commercial depression 
^ Cf. "Immigration Facts and Figures," Ottawa, 1915, 4. 

[43] 



crop 
country 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Thewar in Canada that had lasted over two years — a 
grain-* depression more widespread and serious than any 
growing other since the turn of the twentieth century — 
"^*^ gave a new impulse to grain growing in Mani- 
toba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. 

The result is easily measurable. The average 
area under grain in the prairie provinces from 
1910 to 1914 was 16,608,000 acres. At the 
second harvest after the beginning of the war, 
the aggregate area under grain was 19,797,000 
acres, of which 11,744,700 acres were under 
wheat and 6,290,000 acres under oats.^ 
A one- There is some cattle ranching in Saskatchewan 

and Alberta. The sheep industry also has long 
been established in these provinces. As the popu- 
lation of Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, 
and Edmonton increased, there were increases 
in the acreage devoted to mixed farming. But 
the prairie provinces do not supply their own 
needs. They import large quantities of potatoes, 
butter, eggs, cheese, and fruit. 

In fact, from the time railway connection 
was estabUshed with Lake Superior ports and 
eastern Canada, the vast territory stretching 
west from Winnipeg to Calgary and Edmonton 
has been a one-crop country. It is as much a 
one-crop country as the southern states in which 
cotton is grown; and nine tenths of the people 
in these three provinces — in the cities as well 

^ Cf. Census and Statistics Monthly, Ottawa, January, 19 16, 
28. 

[44] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 

as In the country — are as dependent on the 
grain crop as the people in Pittsburgh are on 
the iron and steel industry, or the people of Fall 
River on the cotton mills. 

Economically the prairie provinces are based impor- 
on grain growing. Every city in Manitoba, ^^° 
Saskatchewan, and Alberta is a monument to growing 
the success of grain growing. The cities east of ? da 
Winnipeg from Kenora to St. John and Halifax, beyond 
and in particular Toronto, Hamilton, and Mont- ^® 
real, have grown in importance, extended their Lakes to 
municipal boundaries, added to their commer- T^^^^ 
cial houses and their factories and to their popu- 
lation, as a result of the development in Canada 
beyond the Great Lakes. 

Eastern Canada of the twentieth century — To 
Montreal with its population of 717,000 in 1915, 
Toronto with 534,000, and Hamilton with Toronto 
102,000^ — owes much of its growth since 1900, 
the larger part of it, in fact, to railway building, 
home building, grain growing, and urban de- 
velopment in the prairie provinces. This is true 
also of Sydney and North Sydney, Nova Scotia, 
with the largest iron and steel plants in the 
British oversea dominions. It is equally true of 
Collingwood, Kingston, and Port Arthur, with 
their steel shipbuilding yards. 

The prairie provinces realize their economic 
importance to Canada. Were there no boundary 

^ Estimated. Cf. Griffin, "Canada, the Country of the 
Twentieth Century," 20. 

[45] 



Montreal 
and 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Attitude 
of grain- 
growing 
provinces 
to Canada 
east of 
the 
Bridge 



Protec- 
tion and 
the grain- 
growing 
industry 



line, and no Canadian custom-houses, manu- 
factured goods that are needed in Manitoba, 
Saskatchewan and Alberta, could be more ad- 
vantageously supplied from Chicago, St. Paul, 
and Minneapolis, than from Toronto, Hamilton, 
Montreal, and the manufacturing cities of the 
Maritime Provinces. 

Except for transport services and for loans, the 
provinces in the east are of little economic im- 
portance to the grain-growing provinces. Their 
consumption of grain and flour does not affect 
the price of grain. The price that the grain 
grower receives is the same whether the grain 
be exported or used in Canada. It is always 
based on the price ruling in Liverpool and Lon- 
don.^ The western point of view is that Mani- 
toba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta could thrive 
far better without eastern Canada than eastern 
Canada could thrive without the grain-growing 
provinces. 

The western country that lies between the 
Great Lakes and the Rocky Mountains derives 
no benefit from the high tariff. British Columbia, 
before the war, had no manufacturing. It had 
no iron and steel plants and no textile industries. 
But it has coal, lumber, fish, and fruit, for which 
there is a market in Canada, and it derives con- 
siderable advantage from the protective duties on 
these products. The prairie provinces, except 
for beef, hides, and a little wool, have only grain 
^ Cf. Harpell, "Canadian National Economy," 12. 

[46] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 

and flour to export, either to eastern Canada or 
oversea; and while the tariff does not influence 
the price of grain, it greatly increases the over- 
head charges of the grain grower and the cost of 
his maintenance. 

The tariff" is consequently the dividing line in Dividing 
politics between the grain-growing provinces and ^1^ 
eastern Canada. "More and more the east is pouocs 
given over to manufacture and commerce and 
finance. The east has imposed upon the west 
a fiscal system which it terms national, but which 
the prairie west considers sectional.^" The line 
is further accentuated by the fact that so much 
of the financial and political power of the Do- 
minion is concentrated in Toronto and Montreal 
and Halifax.^ 

Manifestations of the attitude of the prairie Grain 
provinces towards eastern Canada, and its domi- ^"'^^'^ 
nance in politics and finance, come almost ex- politics 
clusively from the grain growers, who carry most 
of the burden of the tariff.^ The grain growers 
began to organize locally in 1903. Since then 
they have organized by provinces, and also inter- 
provincially. They were 65,000 strong in 1917; 
and for five or six years before the war they were 
better organized, more articulate, and more in- 
fluential in provincial and Dominion politics, 

^ "East and West," Quarterly Journal of the Canadian 
Bankers' Association, Montreal, June, 19 1 7. 

^ Cf. Clarus Agar, "The Farmer and the Interests," 34. 
' Cf. "The Farmers' Platform," 3-53. 

L47] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

than any other of the social and economic forces 
of the Dominion, except the bankers and finan- 
ciers and the manufacturers. 
Municipal In municipal and provincial politics the prairie 
ownership pj-Qvinces are distinctly radical. They are much 
prairie more radical, more disposed to political experi- 
provinces j^gnt, than Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and 
New Brunswick. Water supplies and sewers 
are the only public utilities in eastern Canada 
owned by the municipalities. In the prairie 
provinces cities own street-car lines, natural-gas 
systems, and electric light and power undertakings. 
Public The provincial governments own telegraph 

utilities ^j^j telephone systems; and in the years from 
by the 1910 to 1912 the governments of all three prov- 
provinciai jj^^es, at the urging of the grain growers' asso- 

govern- ..' ,, ,, , 

ments ciations, took the ground that country elevators 
are public utilities, and legislation was enacted 
providing for the public ownership of these 
utilities. 

The prairie provinces form the most agrarian 
division of Canada — a fact that is manifest in 
much of the legislation enacted at Winnipeg, 
Regina, and Edmonton. It is equally manifest 
in the attitude of the grain growers of the three 
provinces towards tariff, fiscal, and railway legis- 
lation at Ottawa.^ 

The economic importance of this geographic 
division of the dominion will increase as new 
homesteads are carved out of the 25,700,000 

1 Cf. "The Farmers' Platform," 6-26, 27-40, and 41-49. 

[48] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 



acres of surveyed lands that were available for 
settlement when immigration into Canada from 
England and Scotland and other European coun- 
tries was brought to a standstill by the great 
war. With the increase of population that the 
settlement of these lands will bring, there will 
be an increase in the parliamentary representa- 
tion of the prairie provinces at Ottawa. The 
continued political dominance of Ontario and 
Quebec is consequently not assured — not nearly 
so assured as their dominance in manufacturing, 
transport, and finance. 



Growing 
political 
impor- 
tance of 
the grain- 
growing 
provinces 



IV. British Columbia 

British Columbia, a province that Canadians 
like to describe as the wonderland of Canada,^ 
is the fourth of the geographical and economic 
divisions of the Dominion. The state of Wash- 
ington forms its southern boundary. On the 
east it has Alberta as a neighbor; on the north 
it is bounded by Alaska and the northwest terri- 
tories, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. 

Vancouver Island, 285 miles long and from 
40 to 80 miles wide, is included in British Colum- 
bia. Victoria, on Vancouver Island, has been 
a political capital since 1850. It has been the 
capital of the province since the government of 
the island and the mainland was united in 1866. 

By its situation and environment it is the most 
beautiful capital in the British Empire, not even 
1 Cf. Griffin, 153. 

[49] 



Wonder- 
land 
of the 
Dominion 



Most 

beautiful 

capital 

in the 

British 

Empire 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Tide- 
water 
cities of 
British 



excepting Capetown, where the parHament house 
of the Union of South Africa occupies a com- 
manding site on the slope of Table Mountain, 
with the Atlantic Ocean in view from the windows 
of the legislative chambers. The windows of 
the legislative building at Victoria look out on 
Puget Sound; and from the windows of the 
legislative library, one of the best-equipped 
libraries in the Dominion of Canada, are visible 
the snow-capped mountains of the State of 
Washington. 

Two thirds of the population of British Colum- 
bia — two thirds of a total population of 400,000 
— were in 1916 resident on Vancouver Island, 
Columbia ^^ ^^ tidewater of the mainland. Vancouver 
had then a population of 106,000; Victoria, 
60,000; New Westminster, 17,000; and Prince 
Rupert, the new city created by the Grand Trunk 
Pacific, 550 miles north of Vancouver, 3500.^ 

Rossland, a mining town, and Nelson, Ashcroft, 
Kamloops, and Revelstoke, railway and distrib- 
uting centers, are the only cities in the interior. 
The province is separated from Alberta by the 
Rocky Mountains, a barrier almost as great from a 
political and economic point of view as the wil- 
derness that lies between Kenora and North Bay. 
' The physical characteristics of British Colum- 
bia — its climate, seashore, mountains, passes, 
rivers, lakes, and forests; its fruit orchards, coal 



Cities 
of the 
Interior 



^ The last Dominion census was taken in 191 1. 
figures are estimates. Cf. GriflBn, 20. 

C50] 



These 



character- 
istics 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 

and other mineral resources; and its fisheries — Physical 
are the pride of the Dominion. It is to Victoria ^^^^^' 

* _ _ tenstics 

and Vancouver that men retire in old age after and re- 
gaining wealth in the prairie provinces or in ^^^^^^ 
eastern Canada. Victoria is the Newport of the province 
Dominion. Vancouver is its Narragansett or 
Atlantic City. 

The social characteristics of British Coulmbia Social 
are as well marked as those of Quebec. In British 
Columbia people of English birth or stock are 
predominant. The Scotch have no such hold 
on British Columbia as they have on Ontario or 
Nova Scotia. Frcm 1850 until Confederation, 
the newcomers into British Columbia, other than 
Chinese, were from England. 

These newcomers were of the English middle immi- 
classes; for before the Canadian Pacific con- f^*f 

into the 

nected Vancouver with Montreal, it was a costly province 
undertaking to emigrate from England to British ™°^^y 
Columbia. Even after the railway was completed England 
in 1886, there was little change in the class of 
immigrants; and the great immigration propa- 
ganda of the Dominion government of 1898-1914 
had been pushed for ten years before there 
was a proletarian immigration from England 
and Scotland and from the countries of conti- 
nental Europe into the three large cities of Brit- 
ish Columbia. 

Externally Vancouver and Victoria are the The 
two most EngHsh cities in the Dominion — Eng- ™°^* ^ 

,. . English 

lish as regards the homes of the people and their ciues 

C51] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



British 
Columbia 
from 
1850 to 
Confeder- 
ation 



Influence 
of British 
Columbia 
on 

Confeder- 
ation 



setting; English in social life, in particular in 
outdoor social life; and English in fashions in 
dress and furniture. 

British Columbia, like Ontario, takes pride in 
its pre-Confederation history and traditions. It 
does so with as good reason as Ontario or Quebec; 
for between 1850 and 1871, when British Colum- 
bia came into Confederation, more constitutional 
history was made in the little city of Victoria 
than in any other city in the oversea possessions 
of Great Britain. 

The constitutional history that was made in 
Victoria in these twenty-one >'ears did not affect 
the dominions as did the constitutional history 
that was made between 1837 and 1867 at Toronto, 
Kingston, Montreal, and Quebec. It did affect 
the terms on which British Columbia came into 
Confederation; and these terms greatly influ- 
enced the political and economic history of 
Canada. 

Had Victoria been merely a trading post of the 
Hudson Bay Company, like Fort Garry, which, 
after Manitoba came into Confederation, became 
known to the world as Winnipeg, or had the 
statesmen of British Columbia of 1 866-1 872 not 
been men of vision, alert, persistent, and resource- 
ful, there is no telling how long would have been 
delayed the carrying through of the railway from 
Montreal to Vancouver. 

No group of men in any British colony ever 
better earned the title of statesmen than the 

C 52 ] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 



group at Victoria who were in control after the 
Hudson Bay Company had been ousted from 
Vancouver Island in 1849. They had been in- 
fluenced by the successful movement for parlia- 
mentary reform in England. They had witnessed 
the rebirth of English municipal institutions that 
followed so quickly the reform of the house of 
'commons of 1832; and they had, moreover, the 
genius for working representative institutions — 
parliamentary and municipal — in the English 
spirit that became so widespread in England in 
the first half of the nineteenth century. 

The immigrants to British Columbia from Eng- 
land of the years from 1849 to 1871, when they 
were establishing themselves in what was then 
the most remote and isolated of all the British 
North American colonies, knew what political 
institutions would meet their needs. They knew 
what they wanted from the colonial office in 
London, in the days when British Columbia was 
a crown colony, with no relation to eastern Canada 
except that it was on the same continent, under 
the same sovereign, and that it had, like eastern 
Canada, the United States as its neighbor. 
They also knew what they wanted from Ottawa 
and from London at Confederation; and in the 
long run — in the period from 1849 to 1871 — 
they got what they demanded from the British 
and the Dominion governments. 

Before Confederation eastern Canada knew as 
little about Victoria as it did about Capetown. 

C53] 



British 
Columbia 
states- 
men 
of the 
pre-Con- 
federa- 
tion era 



Political 

genius 

of the 

early 

settlers 

hi 

British 

Columbia 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



The old- 
time 
isolation 
of British 
Columbia 



Crown 
colony 
stage of 
British 
Columbia 



Repre- 
sentative 
govern- 
ment 
estab- 
lished 



Twenty 
years of 
political 
achieve- 
ment 



British Columbia was then almost as remote 
from Toronto or Quebec as Cape Colony. Over- 
land it could be reached only through the United 
States, by way of San Francisco, which was then 
to Victoria much what Boston has long been to 
Halifax and St. John. 

Political rule at Victoria by the Hudson Bay 
Company came to an end in 1849. From 1849 
to 1 871 British Columbia was a crown colony; 
and there was a period — 1 864-1 866 — during 
which there were two British colonies on the 
Pacific coast — Vancouver Island, with Victoria 
as the capital, and the mainland, with New 
Westminster as the capital. 

Representative government, with an elected 
legislative assembly and a nominated legislative 
council, was established for Vancouver Island in 
1856. The entire white population of the island 
and the mainland was then not more than 450, 
of whom 300 were resident at Victoria,^ which 
from 1856 to 1 871 was the Athens of the over- 
sea dominions of Great Britain.^ 

There were only 8500 white men in the whole 
of British Columbia at Confederation. Yet such 
was the political activity at Victoria between 1851, 
when its first legislative council was established, 
and 1872, that in these twenty-one years the 

1 Cf. Begg, 201. 

^ Cf. Report by James D. Edgar to Secretary of State 
for Canada, June 17, 1874, Canadian Sessional Papers, 1880, 
page 167. 

C54] 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 

people of British Columbia secured for themselves 
(i) a legislature with an elected chamber, and a 
chamber in which the members were nominated; 
(2) a municipal system on the English model for 
Victoria; (3) an educational system, free and 
unsectarian, over which no church — Protestant 
or Roman Catholic — was permitted any control; 
(4) a ruling by the legislative assembly which 
defeated an attempt to make the assembly 
bilingual, as was the legislature of Ontario and 
Quebec at this time, and as parliament at Ottawa 
has been since Confederation; ^ and (5) the 
right of the colony to make its own protective 
tariffs, to pay bounties to encourage local indus- 
tries, and the liberty to apply to Washington 
for inclusion in the Elgin-Marcy reciprocity treaty 
of 1 854-1 866. 

All this progress towards autonomy had been conces- 
made before the negotiations which preceded the ^°^^ 
entry of British Columbia into Confederation were Columbia 
begun in 1869. As a result of these negotiations ^ , , 
with the colonial office in London, and with eraoon 
Ottawa, British Columbia secured (i) the right 
to responsible government, to a status similar 
to that of the five provinces of eastern Canada; 
(2) liberty to abolish the bicameral system and 
substitute a single-chamber legislature, with all 

^ "A petition was brought forward, but being in French it 
was turned back, as the house cannot receive petitions written 
in any foreign language." "MS. Journals of Representative 
Assembly," August 24, 1858. 

C55] * 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Crown 
lands 



Slow 
economic 
develop- 
ment of 
British 
Columbia 



its members directly chosen by the electors; ^ 

(3) pledges from the government at Ottawa for 
the construction of a telegraph line and a rail- 
way from eastern Canada to the Pacific coast; 

(4) a representation in parliament of three sena- 
tors and five members of the house of commons; 
and (5) complete control of the vast area of 
crown lands within the province.^ 

In respect to crown lands, British Columbia has 
an advantage over Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and 
Alberta, the provinces which were brought into 
Confederation by legislation originating and en- 
acted at Ottawa. Crown lands in these three prov- 
inces remain under the control of the Dominion 
government - — the only lands in provinces that 
are so controlled; for at Confederation Ontario, 
Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince 
Edward Island, as was the case with British Co- 
lumbia, retained control of their crown lands. 

From Confederation to 1914 the economic de- 
velopment of British Columbia, and its growth 
in population, were comparatively slow. Until 
1907-1908 central Canada and the prairie prov- 

^ "The two-chamber system in these young countries is a 
superstition which grew out of the social conditions of Eng- 
land — a social condition which has no counterpart in her 
colonies." — British Colonist^ October 19, 1871. 

"^ "No wonder, then, that Governor Musgrave (Sir An- 
thony Musgrave, governor of British Columbia, 1869-1871) 
should have stated publicly that he was amazed at the con- 
cessions granted by the Canadian government." — Edward 
Blake, house of commons, Ottawa, March 28, 1871. 



GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS 



inces absorbed the great stream of Immigration 
that flowed into the Dominion. The population 
of British Columbia in 1901 was only 178,000, 
including Chinamen and Indians. 

The Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk 
Pacific railways were constructed across British 
Columbia, and their termini established at New 
Westminster, Vancouver, and Prince Rupert, in 
the years between 1907 and 1914. The great 
increase in the population of the prairie provinces, 
and this railway construction, aided the develop- 
ment of British Columbia. Lumber, coal, fish, 
and fruit were in increasing demand in the grain- 
growing provinces. 

In these years, with improved railway com- 
munication and with prosperity all over the 
Dominion, British Columbia became increasingly 
the pleasure ground of Canada; and the first 
boom in its history — a boom at the height of 
which prices for real estate in Vancouver and 
Victoria mounted as high as prices for real estate 
in central London — continued until within a 
year of the war. 

The resources of British Columbia are lumber, 
coal, fish, and fruit. It exports all these products 
oversea. In the decade before the war it marketed 
lumber, fish, and fruit in the prairie provinces, 
and to some extent also in eastern Canada. 
British Columbia was a protectionist province 
in the pre-Confederation era. It was almost as 
protectionist as Ontario; and as a result of the 

157-} 



An era 
of 

railway 
building 
and in- 
creased 
immi- 
gration 



A pro- 
tectionist 
province 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

protection of its lumber and fruit-growing indus- 
tries by the Dominion tariff, it is politically 
allied with central Canada and Nova Scotia and 
New Brunswick, and not with its neighbors 
immediately east of the Rocky Mountains — the 
agrarian, radical, and free-trade provinces of 
Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. 



[58] 



CHAPTER IV 



THE EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION 
OF CANADA. I783 TO 184O 

THE loss of the American colonies ended one 
era in British colonial history and began 
a new one. It began the eventful and beneficent 
era that extended from 1783 to 1914 — an era 
parallel to, and greatly influenced by, the era 
of constitutional reform and progress towards 
democracy in Great Britain that extended from 
1832 to the outbreak of the war. 

British colonies at the end of the American 
revolution were Canada, Newfoundland, the 
British West Indies, Australia and New Zealand, 
and a number of smaller possessions now in the 
crown colony division of the colonial office. India 
in 1783 was under the control of the East India 
Company. It was not transferred to the im- 
perial government until 1858. 

At the beginning of the new era there were no 
British settlements in either Australia or New 
Zealand. Canada included the vast territory 
under the rule of the Hudson Bay Company; 
Quebec, which then extended from the Detroit 
River to the western boundary of what is now the 
province of New Brunswick; Nova Scotia; and 
Prince Edward Island. 

C59] 



A new 
era In 
British 
colonial 
history 



BriHsh 
colonial 
posses- 
sions at 
the end 
of the 
American 
revo- 
lution 



Canada 
in 1783 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Popu- 
lation 
of the 
British 
North 
American 
provinces 
at the 
end of 
American 
revolution 



The only white inhabitants of the country 
west of the Detroit River were the factors or 
agents and other employees of the Hudson Bay 
Company. In Quebec the white population did 
not exceed 113,000, of whom it was estimated 
15,000 were of British origin. Nova Scotia, 
which then included New Brunswick and Prince 
Edward Island, had a population of 42,700.^ 

In Newfoundland there were about 10,000 
inhabitants. In all the oversea possessions of 
Great Britain at the end of the American revolu- 
tion, the white population was not more than 
170,000, more than half of whom were French- 
Canadians. 



Impelling 
forces 
towards 
coloni- 
zation 
in 1783 



I. Influence of the American Revolution on 
British North America 

Enthusiasm for colonial possessions was damped 
by the loss of the American colonies; and a period 
of indifference and stagnation in regard to them 
might have begun in 1783 had it not been for 
two conditions which arose out of the war with 
the American colonies. One of these conditions, 
the convicts in England, who during the war 

^ For these statistics of population I am indebted to 
Mr. William Smith, secretary to the board of publications, 
public archives of Canada, Ottav^a. The United Empire 
Loyalists, about 15,000, are not included in the population 
statistics for Canada. In those for Nova Scotia, the then 
recently arrived United Empire Loyalists, as well as disbanded 
troops, in all 28,000 men, women, and children, are included, 
as are also 400 Acadians. 

[60] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 

had been temporarily detained in hulks awaiting 
penal transportation oversea, created a seriously 
embarrassing domestic problem. The second 
condition, the obligation of the British govern- 
ment to the Tories or United Empire Loyalists 
of the revolution, existed in the United States, 
in Canada, and in Nova Scotia; and after the 
peace of 1783 presented a problem that admitted 
of no delay in solution. 

Convicts had been sent out from England to Convict 
the American colonies from as early as 161 8 to ®®"^f"_ 

. ments in 

1776. They were commg at the rate of 400 or Australia 
500 a year in the decade which preceded the 
revolution. At the end of the war the British 
government determined to establish a convict 
settlement in Australia. 

Seven hundred men and women, and boys The first 
and girls, condemned to transportation under f'^B^^"^ 
the revoltingly brutal code of the eighteenth cen- colonies 
tury, were sent to Port Jackson, the present site ^^^'^^^ 
of Sydney, New South Wales, in 1787; and be- revoiu- 
tween then and 1830, 25,000 convicts were trans- *'°° 
ported to New South Wales and Van Dieman's 
Land. The successful revolt of the American 
colonies thus led almost immediately to the 
colonization of Australia; for in 1788 New South 
Wales was formally proclaimed a British colony. 
It was under crown colony rule until 1855; and 
convicts were transported thither until 1841.^ 

^ Cf. "The Oxford Survey of the British Empire — Gen- 
eral Survey," VI, 152-153. 

[61] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



United 
Empire 
Loyalists 
as wards 
of the 
British 
govern- 
ment 



Exodus to 
Canada of 
1783-1784 



A large immigration of United Empire Loyal- 
ists from the United States to the British North 
American provinces, and the Quebec act of 1791, 
were the developments in the solution of the 
second of these problems arising directly out 
of the war of 1 776-1 783. The United Empire 
Loyalists became the wards of the British gov- 
ernment after the treaties of Versailles and Paris; 
and they remained the peculiar care of the Brit- 
ish government for a decade after the revolution. 

The British government arranged for and 
financed the transportation to Canada of all the 
United Empire Loyalists who wished to leave the 
United States. It offered them houses and lands 
in Nova Scotia and Quebec. It maintained many 
of them while they were reestablishing them- 
selves; and it also appointed a royal commission 
to award compensation to them for the material 
loss they had incurred in the American revolu- 
tion. Most of the United Empire Loyalists were 
too poor to go to England. Canada seemed to 
them the most hopeful country of refuge. 

The exodus to Canada — an exodus regarded 
by Canadian historians as comparable with the 
exodus of the Huguenots from France ^ — had 
begun before the treaty of peace was signed at 
Versailles. Nine transports sailed from New 
York for Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia, in April, 
1782. Another company of 7000 men, women, 
and children sailed from New York in April, 
^ Cf. Wallace, "The United Empire Loyalists," 3. 

[62] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 

1783. Half of them went to what is now St. 
John, New Brunswick, and the other half to 
Port Roseway, Shelbourne County, Nova Scotia. 

By the end of September, 1783, 18,000 of the Move- 
loyalists had reached Nova Scotia; and as late ^^^ova 
as January, 1784, they were still arriving at St. Scotia 
John. Canadian historians compute that the 
total immigration of 1 782-1 783 into what are 
now the Maritime Provinces was about 35,000.^ 

There was an immigration of loyalists into inroad 
Quebec as early as 1776. A stream of immigra- Quebec 
tion began after the defeat of Burgoyne, at Sara- 
toga, in 1777. By the end of that year 3000 
loyalists were in the province — most of them in 
the neighborhood of Three Rivers, where "every- 
thing in reason was done to make the unfortu- 
nates comfortable." 

After the treaty of peace had been concluded, 
the stream of immigration overland to Quebec 
greatly increased in volume. There were nearly 
7000 United Empire Loyalists in the French 
province in the winter of 1 783-1 784; and the 
resources of the British government were strained 
to the utmost to provide for the necessities of the 
thousands who had thus flocked over the border 
line from the United States.^ 

At the time the exodus from the United States 
began, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward 
Island were the only organized provinces in 
Canada. In only two of them. Nova Scotia and 

1 Cf. Wallace, 63. 2 cf. Wallace, ibid., 92^3. 

[63] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



PoUtical 

status of 

the 

British 

North 

American 

provinces 

in 1783- 

1784 



Quebec 
constitu- 
tion 
of 1774 



Prince Edward Island, was there organized civil 
government in which the colonists had any part 
through elected legislatures. In 1758 a legisla- 
tive assembly had been established at Halifax, 
for the province of Nova Scotia; and there had 
come into being a legislature which today has 
the distinction of being the oldest law-making 
body in any of the British oversea dominions.^ 

Prince Edward Island had been created a 
separate colony in 1769, at a time when there 
were only about 150 families on the island; ^ and 
in 1773 a legislature, with an elected assembly, 
had been established at Charlottetown. 

The wide but sparsely populated province of 
Quebec was administered at this time, and until 
1 79 1, under a constitution framed by the British 
government, and enacted by parliament at West- 
minster in 1774. Under this constitution, which 
had aroused much opposition from Chatham, 
Burke, Townshend, Dunning, and Barrie, and 
the Whigs as a party, all power was vested in the 
governor. There was a nominated legislative 
council, with extremely restricted powers — with 
less legislative power than is exercised today by 
Canadian municipal councils.^ 

It was a nominated council, because as North 



1 Cf. Burpee, "Sandford Fleming, Empire Builder," 
271-275. 

2 Cf. Weaver, "A Canadian History," 125. 

^ Cf. Egerton, " Historical Geography of the British Colo- 
nies," Vol. V, pt. ii, 12, 13. 

[64] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 

told the house of commons in 1774, there was at 
the time not a sufficient number of EngUsh people 
in Quebec to elect a legislature similar to that 
which had been established at Halifax. No pro- 
vision was made in the Quebec constitution — 
a constitution which Chatham declared "tore 
up justice and every good principle by the roots" 
— for habeas corpus, or for the trial of civil cases 
by jury.^ 

The constitution recognized and continued the Position 
Roman Catholic church in Quebec as an estab- °* ^^ 

. Roman 

lished church, collecting tithes and church levies, cathoUc 

and enforcing its own decrees as to marriage and ^"^^^ ^ 
. . ° Quebec 

the nullification of marriage. These were great 
advantages for the church, especially when they 
were compared with the constitutional disabili- 
ties which were the lot of the adherents of the 
Roman Catholic church in England, Ireland, and 
Scotland in the last quarter of the eighteenth cen- 
tury. They were advantages that partly account 
for the hostility of the church in Quebec to the 
American revolution; for it was realized by the 
clergy that all these valuable privileges enjoyed 
under the constitution of 1774 must come to an 
end if Quebec became a state in the American 
Union. 

French-Canadians, and in particular the hier- 
archy of the church, from 1783 to 1791, had no 
complaint against the constitution of 1774. It 
was the large inflow of United Empire Loyalists 
^ Cf. W. R. RIddell, "The Constitution of Canada," 9-14. 

L652 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



United 
Empire 
Loyalists 
demand 
a new 
constitu- 
tion for 
Quebec 



Potency 

of 

American 

influence 

in the 

years 

from 

1784 to 

1791 



that made a new constitution imperative. A 
government with an elected legislature had been 
established for New Brunswick — a province 
carved out of Nova Scotia — in 1784, almost 
before the stream of immigration of United 
Empire Loyalists to the St. John River country 
had come to an end. 

Before the Quebec act of 1774 was passed by 
parliament, English colonists at Three Rivers, 
Quebec, and Montreal had urged the establish- 
ment of a legislative assembly. There were 
agitations for an assembly in 1769, and again 
in 1773; for military rule, such as existed from 
1763 to 1774, never commended itself to colonists 
of British origin. i 

II. Upper and Lower Canada under the 
Constitutions of 17QI 

For 130 years America has influenced political 
and economic thought in Canada; and this 
influence can be traced almost from the time the 
loyalists settled in Quebec. These newcomers of 
1 778-1 784, joined as they soon were by many 
loyalists who had first emigrated to New Bruns- 
wick, soon began to demand such British institu- 
tions as they had been accustomed to in the 
American colonies. 

In particular they desired (i) an elected legis- 
lative assembly; (2) trial by jury in civil cases; 
and (3) the division of Quebec into two provinces, 
an English and a French province. The larger 

[ 66 ] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 

number of United Empire Loyalists had settled 
west of the Ottawa River, in what is today the 
province of Ontario, and they were desirous that 
this should be an English province. 

The first colonial constitution of the new era First 
in British colonial history — the era of 178'?- '^°^°^^ 

r -NT -r» • constitu- 

1914 — was that of 1784 for New Brunswick, tions 

The second constitution, much more elaborate, °^ *^® 

new era 
was that embodied in the Quebec act of 1791. 

This act created the political divisions of Upper 
and Lower Canada, which were continued under 
these names until the reunion of the two prov- 
inces in 1840.^ 

The constitutions of these provinces were 
similar. Each provided for (i) a governor and 
executive council; (2) a nominated legislative 
council; and (3) a popularly elected legislative 
assembly. 

The qualifications for electors of the legislative QuaUfi- 
assembly, it was provided by the act of 1791, *=^^°°^ 
were to be the same as those in England at that electors 
time for electors of knights of the shire. In 
counties of Lower and Upper Canada, the elect- 
ors were the owners of land of a rental value 
of forty shillings a year. There was at that time 
no uniformity in England as regarded the quali- 
fications of parliamentary electors in the bor- 
oughs; but it was provided that electors in the 
three towns of Lower Canada, and the two of 

1 Cf. Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," Note XVI, 
45- 

[67] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Upper Canada, should be the owners of houses 
of a rental value of five pounds, or occupiers of 
houses of which the rent was not less than ten 
pounds a year. 

In England and Scotland in 1791, and until 
1829, the oath against transubstantiation ex- 
cluded Roman Catholics from the exercise of the 
electoral franchise, and also from parliament. No 
such oath was imposed by the constitution of 
1 79 1 on electors in Upper and Lower Canada, 
or on members of the legislature. 

Wages had not been paid to members of the 
house of commons in England since the seven- 
teenth century, and the system of paying the 
traveling expenses of members to and from 
parliament had been in desuetude for a much 
longer time. In Upper and Lower Canada wages 
and traveling expenses were for many years a 
charge on the electorates. 

Property qualifications were necessary for 
members of the house of commons at West- 
minster from 1 710 to 1858.^ There was no 
provision in the Quebec act for property quali- 
fications for members of the legislative assembly; 
nor was there any provision that members should 
be resident in the constituencies from which they 
were elected. 

Two departures in colonial constitutions char- 
acterized Pitt's Quebec act of 1791. The first 

^ Porritt, "The Unreformed House of Commons," I, 168- 
178. 

[68] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Pitt's 
attempt 
to 

establish 
the 

English 
church in 
Canada 
and to 
create an 
aristoc- 
racy 

Clergy 
reserves 



Sixty 
years of 
sectarian 
strife 



was an attempt, long persisted in, to establish a 
connection between state and church, such as 
exists in England — to establish the Church of 
England as a state-supported church in Lower 
and Upper Canada. The second was an attempt, 
but nothing more than an attempt, to create a 
hereditary aristocracy and a governing class 
similar to that which then existed and still exists 
in England. 

By the thirty-sixth section of the act of 1791, 
provision was made for reserving out of all 
grants of public lands an allotment for the sup- 
port of a Protestant clergy. The allotment was 
to be equal in value to the seventh part of the 
lands granted. These allotments were known as 
the "clergy reserves." The rents and profits 
from them were to be applicable solely to the 
maintenance and support of a Protestant clergy. 
Provision was also made for the endowment of 
rectories out of the proceeds of the sale of public 
lands. 

In the first half of the nineteenth century these 
provisions in the act of 1791 were prolific of 
bitter political and sectarian strife in Upper 
Canada. The setting aside of the clergy lands 
in the settlement of townships caused great hard- 
ship to pioneer homesteaders. It retarded the 
development of Upper Canada. It divided the 
inhabitants both in town and country into two 
hostile camps. It was one of the contributing 
causes of the rebellion of 1837. It entailed much 

C70] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 



trouble for the legislatures of Upper Canada, 
and of the United Provinces, and also for the 
colonial office and parliament at Westminster, 
The clergy reserves were persistently disturbing 
issues in Canadian politics until Pitt's attempt 
of 1791 was finally abandoned in 1854.^ 

From every point of view — economic, social, 
and political — Pitt's attempt to create an estab- 
lished church was unfortunate. It was especially 
unfortunate for the Episcopal church in Canada, 
which did not begin to make the appeal, of which 
it is eminently capable, until the great Im- 
migration from England of 1901-1914. By that 
time the disturbing controversies of 1 820-1 854 
were forgotten, and the clergy reserves were a 
memory with only the elder generation of 
Canadians.^ 

Pitt's plan for an aristocracy and a governing 
class was that the dignity of membership of the 
legislative councils was to be coupled with every 
title of honor conferred in Canada by the crown. ^ 
Pitt knew little of England outside London. He 
knew nothing of social conditions in a new coun- 

^ Cf. Stimson, " History of the Separation of Church and 
State in Canada," 27, 28. 

^ Cf. "The Days of the Glebe," Globe, Toronto, November 
23, 1911. 

' "There was a very curious provision in the act of 1791, 
which might have proved mischievous. This right was never 
exercised, and the Canadas fortunately escaped an heredi- 
tary second house of parliament." — Riddell, "Constitution 
of Canada," Note XVII, 46. 

[71] 



A mis- 
fortune 
for the 
Episcopal 
church 
In 
Canada 



Pitt's 
attempt 
to create 
a gov- 
erning 
class 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

try like Canada^ where there were hundreds of 

thousands of square miles of unoccupied land and 

consequently no renters and no rural laborers 

to support an aristocracy.^ 

FamUy Canada since the American revolution was 

*^f imT^ never long without a governing class. It first 

1840 emerged from the United Empire Loyalists and 

the first generation of their descendants. These 

men formed oligarchies known at Toronto, 

Quebec, Halifax, and Fredericton, from 1820 

to 1840, as the "Family Compacts." ^ 

Present- Since Confederation, and especially since 1879, 

^^^°^' the governing class of the Dominion has been 

class composed of the bankers, the railway magnates, 

2f *^,^, and the manufacturers who have their head- 
Dominion 

quarters in Toronto and Montreal. Pitt's plan 
of 1 79 1 for an aristocracy was no factor in the 
creation of either the governing class of 1820— 
1840 or in that of 1879-1914. 

From as early as 1829 knighthoods were some- 
times bestowed on judges of the higher courts. 

^ "The history of the thirteen colonies was full of evi- 
dence to show that an executive and an upper house inde- 
pendent of popular control in colonial constitutions were 
fruitful sources of conflict, disorder, and even of the paraly- 
sis of government. There was evidence also to show the 
impossibility of a colonial hereditary nobihty." — George 
Burton Adams, "The Influence of the American Revolution 
on England's Government of her Colonies." Report of 
American Historical Association, 1896, Vol. I, 375-389. 

2 Cf. Boyd, "Sir George Etienne Cartier," 7. 

3 Cf. Egerton, Vol. V, pt. ii, 158-164. 

[72] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 

The title of knight lapses with the death of its Heredi- 
holder. Only baronetcies and peerages are he- ^ 
reditary; and the Quebec act of 1791 had been on Canada 
the statute books for over sixty years, and had 
been superseded by the constitutional legisla- 
tion of 1840, before there were in Canada men 
sufficiently wealthy to assume the family, social, 
and financial responsibilities of a hereditary 
title.^ 

It was 1854 before a baronetcy was conferred 
on a Canadian. It was 1891 before a Canadian 
received a peerage.^ Long before the first baron- 
etcy was conferred on a Canadian, Pitt's plan 
of 1 791 had been forgotten; and today member- 
ship of the nominated senate at Ottawa, and of 

^ Only three peerages were bestowed on native-born 
Canadians between 1783 and 1917. Commenting on a peer- 
age bestowed on a Montreal newspaper proprietor in Febru- 
ary, 1917, N. W. Rowell, K. C, leader of the Liberal party 
in the province of Ontario, said: "I venture to think that in 
the free democracy of Canada we are not improving condi- 
tions by importing hereditary titles, passing from father to 
son. I hope it may be the last. I think when we are fighting 
the battle of democracy the world over the tendency will be 
in the Old Country to bring themselves into harmony with 
our spirit of democracy rather than for us transplanting part 
of the old feudal system into Canada." — Gazette, Montreal, 
February 16, 1917. 

^ Sir John Beverley Robinson, chief justice of Upper 
Canada, 1829-1863, was the first Canadian to receive a baron- 
etcy. The first Canadian peer was a woman, Baroness Mac- 
donald of Eamscliffe, widow of Sir John A. Macdonald, who 
at the time of his death in 1891 was premier of the Dominion. 

[73] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Five 

British 

North 

American 

provinces 

of 1791- 

1861 



Political 
develop- 
ment of 
Nova 
Scotia 
and New 
Bruns- 
wick 



the nominated legislative councils of Quebec 
and Nova Scotia — the only provinces in which 
legislative councils or upper houses survive — 
is not affected by baronetcies or peerages con- 
ferred on Canadians. 

The Quebec act of 1791, by the division of 
Quebec into Lower and Upper Canada, increased 
the number of British North American prov- 
inces to five.^ It remained at this number until 
1 85 1, when British Columbia was organized as 
a province. 

In the period from the incoming of the United 
Empire Loyalists to Confederation, Nova Scotia 
and New Brunswick each made some contribu- 
tion to the constitutional development of the 
Dominion. In each, as in Upper Canada, there 
was a struggle, finally successful, against efforts 
to establish and maintain a privileged position 
for the church of England.^ It was, moreover, 
the conference in Charlottetown, organized by the 
Maritime Provinces in 1864 for the purpose of 
establishing a legislative union of these three 
provinces, that brought Confederation of all 
the British North American provinces within the 
realm of practical politics in Canada and at 
Westminster. 



^ Cape Breton was organized as a separate province in 
1784. It was reunited with Nova Scotia in 1820. As an 
island province it had no particular part in the constitutional 
history of Canada. 

2 Cf. Egerton, Vol. V, pt. ii, 156-159. 

[74] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 

Joseph Howe, the editor of the Nova Scotian, struggle 
of Halifax, in 1835, was the defendant in a crimi- !*"^ * 
nal proceeding for Ubel; and by his successful press 
defense he achieved a victory which established 
freedom of the press in Nova Scotia. In New 
Brunswick in 1844, the printers of the Loyalist, 
Doak and Hill, fought to a successful issue in 
the law courts the claim of the legislature at 
Fredericton to interfere with the liberty of the 
press, and thereby rendered a service to all the 
British North American provinces as great as 
that rendered by the printers of the Public Ad- 
vertiser, in England, in their memorable contest 
with the house of commons in 1772, over the 
reporting of the debates.^ 

British Columbia, in the years from 1851, Political 
defeated an attempt to establish state-aided *<=^«^«- 

'^ meats 

sectarian education, and also an attempt to make of Upper 

the legislature at Victoria bilingual. But gen- ^^ 

erally speaking the constitutional advances from Canada 

1791 to Confederation, which beneficently af- ^'°™, 

' ^ . , . . -^ 1791 to 

fected all the British colonies which are now of confed- 
the dominions, were achieved in Lower and ^^**^°° 
Upper Canada. 

The first legislature of Upper Canada assem- Early 
bled at Niagara in September, 1792; but in j®^" 
1794 York, now known as Toronto, became the 
capital. Quebec continued to be capital of the 
French province. The first legislature assembled 

^ Porritt, "A Century and a Half of English Journalism in 
Canada," 125-126, 133-134. 

[75] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Legis- 
lative 
councils 



there in December, 1792. The governor-general 
was estabhshed in the citadel at Quebec. At 
Toronto there was a lieutenant-governor. Both 
these officials were appointed by the colonial 
office. Each new governor came out with de- 
tailed instructions, prepared by the colonial office, 
as to the policy which he was to follow. 

At each capital the governor-general or the 
lieutenant-governor chose the executive council; 
nominated the members of the legislative coun- 
cil; and had at his disposition all political pat- 
ronage.^ At Quebec the legislative council, 
according to the terms of the constitution, was 
to consist of not less than fifteen members. In 
Upper Canada it was to consist of not less than 
seven members. The legislature was to be called 
together once in every twelve months. The dura- 
tion of the elected legislative assembly could 
not exceed four years. 



Proce- 
dure and 
usages 
of West- 
minster 
estab- 
lished in 
Canada 



III. The Legislatures of iyg2-i8^y 

The earliest legislatures established in Canada, 
that at HaUfax in 1758 and that at Fredericton 
in 1784, were organized for business as nearly as 
possible on the model of parliament at West- 
minster. The throne was placed in the cham- 
ber of the legislative council. The presiding 
officer of the legislative council, as in the house 
of lords, was appointed by the government. All 

1 Cf. Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty's Colonial 
Service, 19. 

[76] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 



communications of the council with the assembly 
were carried, with the old world formalities, 
either by a master in chancery, or by black 
rod, whose official costume was patterned to the 
last detail on that of black rod at Westminster. 

In the legislative assemblies, at the meeting The 
of a new legislature, the first business was the 
election of speaker. The procedure at this elec- 
tion was similar to that at the first meeting of a 
house of commons. The clerk of the house and 
the sergeant-at-arms were appointed by the 
government. 

The formalities attending the opening of a 
session were the same as at Westminster. The 
speech was read from the throne by the governor, 
with the speaker, the sergeant-at-arms, and 
rriembers of the assembly in attendance at the 
bar of the council chamber. Back in their own 
chamber, for the consideration of the speech 
from the throne, the first proceeding after the 
speech had been read by the speaker was to give 
a first reading, pro forma, to a bill, in order that 
the assembly might assert its independence of 
the crown, and exercise its right to attend to its 
own business before concerning itself with the 
business to which the sovereign had directed its 
attention. 

The rules of debate and procedure on bills — 
introduction and first reading, second reading, 
committee stage, and third reading — were all 
as at Westminster. 

[77] 



speaker 



Speech 
from the 
throne 



Proce- 
dure 
in bUls 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Epoch- 
making 
measures 
of the 
first 
legis- 
lature of 
Upper 
Canada 



An 
anti- 
slavery 
law 



The legislature of Upper Canada held its first 
session in 1792, at Niagara, in a log cabin with 
only one door and two windows.^ Only eight 
members of the assembly were in attendance. 
But there was a speech from the throne ^ and 
the formalities and procedure were as at West- 
minster. This parliament in miniature, more- 
over, earned distinction in British colonial history 
by two of its proceedings. 

It declared British law with regard to property 
and civil rights to be in force in Upper Canada; 
and it passed an act ^ forbidding slavery in the 
province — another early instance of the influ- 
ence of the United States, direct and indirect, on 
the political, economic, and social development 
of Canada. "It has the honor," writes one of 
the most sympathetic of its historians, "of being 
the first assembly in the British Empire to for- 
bid the terrible wrong of slavery." * 

An anti-slavery law was necessary if slavery 
were not to be established in Upper Canada; for 
at Westminster, in 1790, in the session immedi- 
ately preceding that in which the second Quebec 
act was passed, a remarkable amendment^ had 

^ Cf. Weaver, "A Canadian History," 145. 

^ John Graves Simcoe, Lieutenant-Governor, in his speech 
from the throne, at the closing of the session of 1792, assured 
the legislature that the constitution of the Province of Upper 
Canada was "the very image and transcript of that of Great 
Britain." — Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," Note XVIIL 

47- 

'33 Geo. Ill, c. 7. * Weaver, 146. ^ 30 George III, c. 27. 

[78] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 

been made to the old navigation code of Great 
Britain. It was an amendment which was re- 
garded as a concession to the colonies in America. 
By virtue of it immigrants arriving in any of 
the British North American provinces were per- 
mitted to import their "negroes, household 
furniture, utensils of husbandry, and clothing " - 
duty free. 

The legislature which met for the first time French- 
at Quebec, in December, 1792, was also organized ^^^^' 
for business after the model of parliament at and the 
Westminster; and in no province of the Dominion P^sean- 
have the old-world formalities and ceremonial state 
usages of parliament been more tenaciously ad- 
hered to than in Quebec. The French-Canadian 
has a natural love for the pageantry of state. 

The urban and rural population of the French 
province in 1792 was much larger than that of 
Upper Canada. The cities — Quebec, Three 
Rivers, and Montreal — had an aggregate repre- 
sentation of ten members in the assembly. There 
was also a member for the town of Sorel. 

The other members were knights of the shire. Knights 
usually two from each of the counties into which °f*^® 
Lower Canada was divided. These members 
were girt with sword at the time the sheriff de- 
clared their election, as was the custom in Eng- 
land until after 1885, when English counties lost 
their ancient parliamentary identity by partition 
into modern electoral divisions. 

The total number of members of the Quebec 

[79] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

assembly in 1792 was fifty. Sixteen were of 
British origin. This proportion was never ex- 
ceeded in the forty-five years from 1792 to the 
rebellion in 1837, which for thirty years made 
an end to a separate legislature in Quebec. 
French The elective legislative assembly at Quebec, 

language ^^ j^g £j.g^ session in 1792, made history by 
adopting the rule that the French and English 
languages should stand on a footing of complete 
equality in debate and in the introduction of bills. 
Today both languages are used in the Quebec 
legislature, which was reestablished at Confedera- 
tion in 1867. Both are also used in parliament 
at Ottawa, in debate, in the printing of bills and 
acts, and in government documents. This usage 
at Quebec and Ottawa can be traced back to the 
rule adopted by the legislative assembly in 1792. 
Restricted The powcts of the assembly, both at Quebec 
powers ^j^j ^^ Toronto, were restricted. It had no power 
legis- over appropriations until after the constitution 
lative Qf J-Q2 was amended in 183 1. In these fort\ 

assem- ^ 

bues years, the assembly had no such power over 
appropriations as was exercised by the house of 
commons. Vote as it might, the assembly, at no 
time between 1792 and 1837, could influence the 
policy of the executive, if the executive was 
determined to pay no heed to the will of the 
majority of the assembly. Act as it would, the 
assembly could not dislodge the executive. 

The assembly, when it initiated legislation, was 
always confronted by two powers at Quebec that 
C80] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 

could override it, and in practice veto any bills Three 
that it might pass. These were (i) the legislative °^" 
council, whose members had no constituents to powers 
whom they were responsible, only the governor 
who had appointed them having any power to call 
them to account; and (2) the governor, who had 
power to accept or reserve a bill which had passed 
both houses of the legislature, to reserve involv- 
ing the transmission of the bill to London for 
approval by the colonial office. Moreover, even 
after a bill had run the gantlet of the assembly 
and the council, and after it had been accepted 
by the governor, it could be vetoed in London 
at any time within two years. 

These were the days of the old commercial Old 
policy of the British Empire. England was under ^"^j^ 
a protectionist system. The old navigation code, policy 
which had its beginnings in the days of the Crom- q^^^^ 
wellian protectorate, was in force until 1847; and Britain 
the aim of the commercial system was to build ^^^l^^ 
up British trade with little regard to any develop- force 
ing manufacturing industries in the colonies. None 
of the North American provinces was at liberty to 
frame its own fiscal system. No British colony 
enjoyed this freedom without restriction until 
1846. None exercised it to the full until 1858. 

Lower and Upper Canada were consequently 
not permitted to impose other than revenue 
duties on manufactures from Great Britain. All 
imports from Great Britain must come into the 
provinces in British vessels; all colonial exports 

[81] 



start 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

to Great Britain had also to be carried in ves- 
sels on the British registry; and there were no 
free ports until 1822. 

IV. The Dreary Period of the New Era in 
British Colonial History 

Political It cannot be affirmed that the governments 
corrup- established at Toronto and Quebec in 1 792-1 793 
almost worked well. There was jobbery and corruption 
from the fj-Qm as early as 1795 — corruption in the collec- 
tion of the revenue; and jobbery, with the con- 
nivance of the executive council at Quebec, in 
the allotment of public lands in Lower Canada.^ 
Conditions became worse in the first decade of 
the nineteenth century; ^ and between 181 2 and 
1820 there began the most dreary period of the 
new era of British colonial history — the era 
from 1783 to 1914. 

The dreary period lasted from 181 2 to 1840; 
and, like the Quebec act of 1791, and the ham- 
strung legislative assemblies created by this act,^ 

1 Cf. Egerton, Vol. V, pt. ii, 61-64. ^ Cf. Boyd, 34. 

' "It is difficult to conceive what could have been their 
theory of government, who imagined that in any colony of 
England a body invested with the name and character of a 
representative assembly could be deprived of any of those 
powers which in the opinion of Englishmen are inherent in 
a popular legislature." — "Lord Durham's Report on the 
Affairs of British North America." Lucas, Vol. II, 76. "While 
the French-Canadians had been given representative parlia- 
mentary institutions, those institutions had been practically 
rendered inoperative. The people possessed the shadow with- 
out the substance of parliamentary government." — Boyd, 35. 

[82] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 



it furnished abundant proof that British states- 
men had not learned the lesson of 1 776-1 783, 
and were not disposed to learn it until forced to 
do so by the rebellions of 1837. Causes for the 
popular discontent existed in London as well as at 
Toronto and Quebec; for some petitions to the 
colonial office from Canada were ignored; others 
were long in bringing any results; and when con- 
cessions were made to the reformers of Upper and 
Lower Canada they were grudging and inadequate. 

At Quebec power under the constitution of 
1 79 1, exercised through the executive and legis- 
lative councils, was monopolized by the com- 
mercial classes of the city and of Montreal. The 
men of the mercantile interests, most of them 
newcomers from Britain, were at this time the 
governing class of Lower Canada; and between 
the British and the French-Canadians there was 
keen and politically disturbing antagonism. 

Political power at Toronto, exercised, as at 
Quebec, through the executive and legislative 
councils, usually with the sanction of the lieu- 
tenant-governor, was in the hands of the Tories 
of the Family Compact. Here again American 
example and tradition influenced Canadian politi- 
cal conditions. At this time — 1820-183 7 — this 
American influence was adverse to popular gov- 
ernment in Upper Canada; though in the long 
run, in the years from 1820 to 1837, it made 
indirectly for constitutional advance and the prog- 
ress of democracy in Canada. 

[83] 



British 
states- 
men fall 
to learn 
the 

lesson of 
1776- 
1783 



Govern- 
ing class 
of Lower 
Canada 



Family 

compact 

in 

Upper 

Canada 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Tradi- 
tions of 
the 

American 
revolution 



Bourbon 
Torjrism 
of Upper 
Canada 



Partisan 
governors 



The Tories of this period were mostly United 
Empire LoyaHsts, or descendants of loyalists, 
who, influenced by experiences in the American 
revolution, or by family tradition of these ex- 
periences, and by ill-feeling engendered by the 
invasion of Upper Canada by American troops 
during the war of 1812, cherished an assertive 
and aggressive hatred of democracy or republi- 
canism in any shape or form. 

The dominant political cliques in Upper Canada 
at this time developed a cult of Toryism which 
has never been matched in any other part of the 
English-speaking world. ^ It was more Tory even 
than the American Toryism of 1 776-1 783. It 
was even more Bourbon and unyielding than the 
Toryism of England that was developed by the 
wars with France of 1793-18 15; for it was in- 
flamed by a struggle to hold on to a monopoly 
of all political opportunities, and by the strife 
attending a finally unsuccessful endeavor to es- 
tablish a privileged political position for one 
division of the Christian church. 

Governors from 1792 to 1837 were notoriously 
partisan. Nearly all of them were, or had been, 
army ofiicers. They were imbued with the Eng- 
lish Toryism of the period. A new governor, as 



i"A junto of oligarchs, who, however odious and tyran- 
nical they might become, could not be punished or brought 
to account for their conduct." — John Charles Dent, "The 
Last Forty Years: Canada Since the Union of 1841," Vol. 
I, p. 19. 

[84] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 

soon as he arrived, fell into the arms of the little 
group of officials in control, and could hardly- 
escape the influence of the ruling clique. From 
the point of view of the elected legislative assem- 
bly, the governor was an opponent from the day 
he arrived at Quebec or Toronto. Governors 
openly interfered in elections, and always against 
the popular or democratic group in the legislative 
assembly. 

The last governor of Upper Canada before the Pork- 
rebellion of 1837 — Francis Bond Head — in 1836 *^^' 
. . appro- 

committed the province, which had then a popu- priations 

lation of only 350,000, to an expenditure of four 
million dollars on roads, bridges, and wharfs, 
chiefly to carry a general election. Head thereby 
began a practice which has continued and flour- 
ished up to the present day; for in the house of 
commons at Ottawa annual pork-barrel appro- 
priations for post offices, customs houses, armo- 
ries, wharfs, and dredging, with the bribery of 
constituencies and the local jobbery inherent in 
these appropiations, are as notorious as they are 
in congress at Washington. 

Offices and patronage at Quebec and Toronto Patron- 
were the monopoly of the Family Compact groups, ^f^^^ 
Plural office holders were numerous. The legis- office 
lative assemblies were crowded with office holders. ^°^^^^^ 
Protestant and Roman Catholic bishops were of 
the legislative councils; and so were judges. 

Bills originating in the legislative assemblies 
were rejected mechanically and wholesale by 

[85] , 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



" What's 
the 

constitu- 
tion 
among 
friends?" 



the legislative councils. If a member of the 
assembly was persona non grata to the ruling 
clique, he was ejected without regard to his indi- 
vidual rights or the rights of the constituency 
by which he had been elected. If the constit- 
uency ventured to petition for redress it was 
publicly snubbed by the governor, whose atti- 
tude can best be expressed in the words of an 
American boss, who exclaimed. "What's the 
constitution among friends?" 



Political 
issues 
of 1820- 
1837 



Govern- 
ments 
that were 
oligarchic 
and 
corrupt 



V. Crown Colony Rule at Its Worst 

The questions at issue in the decade which 
preceded the rebellions of 1837 were (i) the 
clergy reserves; (2) responsible government — 
the demand for an executive dependent upon a 
majority in the assembly, as was the constitu- 
tional usage in England; (3) full control by the 
assembly over taxation and appropriations; 
(4) an elected instead of a nominated legislative 
council; (5) the exclusion of judges from the legis- 
lature; (6) the system under which judges held 
office at the will of the government; and (7) the 
abolition of the system of plural office holding. 

Cartier, the best-equipped statesman the 
French province ever gave to the Dominion, was, 
in his youth, associated with Papineau in the 
rebellion in Quebec. He always insisted that it 
was a rebellion, not against British authority, or 
against the British connection, but against the 
vicious system of government which existed in 

[86: 



EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 

Lower and Upper Canada for a generation before 
1837.^ It was a rebellion against governments at 
Quebec and Toronto that were Bourbon in out- 
look, oligarchic, and corrupt. 

"Narrow-minded and tyrannical," is Eger- 
ton's characterization of the government at 
Toronto. 2 These governments bore down ruth- 
lessly on all attempts at reform from outside; and 
the colonial office in London made no attempt 
either to check or to reform them. 

From the American revolution until responsible Crown 

government was conceded to all the British ^""^ 

North American provinces in the forties of the the 

nineteenth century, Quebec and Ontario, Nova ^^j^g^. 

Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward enceto 

Island were under what would be described to- °^®'"^®* 

posses- 
day as crown colony rule; and from 1820 to 1837 sions 

crown colony government was seen at its worst 
in Toronto and Quebec.^ 

It was crown colony rule of the era of indif- 
ference to colonial expansion, of the days when 
Wellington ^ was willing to turn over Ceylon to 
the East India Company; when George Corne- 
wall Lewis ^ confessed that he was unable to see 
what possible advantage England derived from 
the possession of Canada; and Peel ^ was quite 

1 Cf. Boyd, 66. 2 Egerton, Vol. V, pt. ii, 127. 

3 Cf. Egerton, Vol. V, pt. ii, 68-78, 1 16-123, 124-132; 
Lucas, " Lord Durham's Report," Vol. I, 33-72; Vol. II, 7- 
185; Boyd, 27-44. 

* 1828. 5 jg27_ 6 i8^i_ 

[87] . 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

willing to see Canada separate from the British 

Empire. 
New era It was, however, an era of crown colony rule 
of crown ^j^^^ j^^j nothing but the name in common with 

colony ° 

rule the new and beneficent era of crown colony 
government that began in the first decade of 
Queen Victoria's reign. The fundamentals of 
this modern crown colony rule are (i) that the 
principle of government must be determined by 
parliament at Westminster, as interpreter of the 
spirit of the British constitution; (2) policy de- 
termined by the colonial ofl&ce, subject to the 
control of parliament; and (3) practice deter- 
mined by the governor, sent out from London, 
subject to the control of the colonial office.'^ 

^ Bruce, "The Broad Stone of Empire," Vol. I, xix. 



[88] 



CHAPTER V 

FROM THE REBELLION TO CONFED- 
ERATION. 1837 TO 1867 



P 



APINEAU was the leader of the rebellion Leaders 

of the 
rebellion 



in the French province. WilHam Lyon °^^^^ 



Mackenzie was the leader in the much less san- 
guinary rising in Upper Canada. There seems 
to have been only a sympathetic connection be- 
tween the two revolts. But in each province 
there were adequate causes for the rebellion. 

Both leaders were subject to fierce criticism 
and abuse by contemporary writers whose sym- 
pathies were with the ruling cliques at Quebec 
and Toronto. Each has also received some 
harsh criticism from some Canadian historians. 
Little importance now attaches to any of this 
criticism; for Papineau and Mackenzie between 
them started a new and beneficent era in British 
colonial policy. 

Louis Joseph Papineau was born at Montreal Papi- 
in 1786. He became active in politics in 1809, "^^^ 
and was elected to the legislative assembly in 
1812. He was a man of attractive personality 
and commanding presence, and was an effective 
speaker in the assembly and on the platform. 
He was also a man of the highest character. 
French-Canadians were always in a majority in 

[89] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Pamell 
of French 
Canada 



Papi- 
neau's 
political 
platform 



the legislative assembly at Quebec; and Papi- 
neau was elected speaker in 1815, and held that 
office until the rebellion. 

In these twenty-five years — 1812-1837 — 
Papineau was the political leader of the French- 
Canadians. The issue was whether the British 
minority or the French majority should rule at 
Quebec; and in these years the hold of Papineau 
on the French people was quite as great as the 
hold which either O'Connell or Parnell had on 
the Nationalist movement in Ireland in the 
nineteenth century. 

Before the rebellion there was nothing disloyal ^ 
or treasonable in Papineau's platform. What 
he desired was stated by him in a speech in the 
assembly in 1835, at a time when the assembly 
was harassing the government at Quebec by 
withholding supplies, and rendering it necessary 
that measures in rehef should be passed by par- 
liament at Westminster. 

"The government I long for," said Papineau, 
in this speech of 1835, "is one composed of 
friends of legality, Hberty, and justice — a gov- 
ernment which would protect indiscriminately 

1 Private advices received in Montreal last night an- 
nounced the death in action of Captain Talbot M. Papineau, 
M.C., of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. In 
April, 191 S, he was awarded the Military Cross for con- 
spicuous gallantry at St. Eloi, on February 28. Captain 
Papineau was the great grandson of Louis Joseph Papineau. 
He was a Rhodes scholar at Oxiord. — Gazette, Montreal, 
November 3, 1917. 

[903 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

every proper interest, and accord to all ranks and 
to each race of inhabitants equal rights and privi- 
leges. We demand for ourselves such political 
institutions as are in accordance with those of 
the rest of the Empire, and the age we live in." ^ 

William Lyon Mackenzie was a Scotsman, Macken- 
born at Dundee in 1795. He emigrated to Upper ^*® 
Canada in 1820. He was a man of some educa- 
tion and of good family. Like Papineau he 
understood the working of government by par- 
liament and cabinet at Westminster. He was 
persistent and resourceful as an agitator. He 
was also impetuous, with a tinge of the theatrical 
in his make-up. 

Immigrants into Canada from England and 
Scotland at this time had many of them come 
under the influence of the movement for parlia- 
mentary reform, and were permeated by its 
radicalism. Political conditions in Canada were 
even worse than political conditions in England 
before 1832. They aroused the indignation of 
these newcomers, whose influence, along with 
the effect of the success of parliamentary reform 
at Westminster, helped to give force and per- 
sistency to the movement for reform in Upper 
Canada. 

Mackenzie soon identified himself with this Upper 
democratic movement. In 1824 he established ^^gf 
at Toronto the Colonial Advocate; and attained dread of 
province-wide fame in 1826 through a stupid and ^ 



rougn a stupia ana 
1 Boyd, 37. 



C91] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Macken- 
zie in the 
legis- 
lature at 
Toronto 



PubU- 

cation 

of 

division 

lists 



A partisan 
governor 



ill-conceived riotous attack, made by the younger 
Tories, on his printing plant, during which his 
hand-press was thrown into Lake Ontario. 

In 1828 Mackenzie was elected to the assem- 
bly. There he made himself objectionable to 
the Tories by assailing the appointment of an 
Episcopalian chaplain to the assembly; by his 
opposition to the presence of an Episcopal and 
a Roman Catholic bishop in the legislative coun- 
cil; by assailing the executive for crowding the 
assembly with office holders; and by publishing 
the division lists in his newspaper. 

For publishing the division lists, a practice 
which had been established in connection with 
the house of commons at Westminster since 1689, 
Mackenzie in 1832 was expelled from the assem- 
bly at Toronto. Four times he was reelected. 
Then the assembly, without any constitutional 
warrant, declared him incapable of serving as a 
member; and on presenting himself he was 
ejected by the sergeant-at-arms. 

His constituents presented a petition to Head, 
who was then governor. The only answer to 
this petition, which was presented to the gov- 
ernor in person, was, "I have received your peti- 
tion "; and no redress was forthcoming at Toronto 
either for Mackenzie or for his constituents. 

A landmark in the constitutional history of 
Canada of interest to all the dominions was set 
up by Mackenzie during his first session in the 
legislative assembly. He drafted in 1828 a 

[92] 



i 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

statement of the grievances of the colonists of First 
Upper Canada, which was forwarded by the re- ^^™^* 
formers in the assembly to the colonial office respon- 
in London; and it would seem that in this mani- ^*^*® 

govem- 

festo the first claim for responsible government ment 
for any British colony was made. Papineau, 
in his speech of 1835, pressed the claim; but it 
was one to which seven years before 1835 the 
reformers in Upper Canada had directed their 
efforts. 

I. The Rebellions in Lower and Upper Canada 

The rebellion in Lower Canada broke out on inter- 

November 6, 1837. The rising in Upper Canada ^^"^'^^ 

began at Toronto on December 4. The imme- pariia- 

diate cause in Lower Canada developed out of ^^^^ 

the popular agitation, led by Papineau, against West- 

a resolution passed by Parliament at Westmin- °^^*®'' 
ster, providing for the payment of salaries of 
judges in Lower Canada, after the legislative 
assembly at Quebec had persistently refused to 
vote supplies for these payments. 

Meetings to protest against this legislation by Gosford 

the British parliament were prohibited by Gos- ^°' 

1 • T hiblts 

ford, the governor-general, m June. But they protest 
went on, nevertheless, from June to October. ™®«**°8* 
The crisis came in November. There was a riot 
in Montreal on the 6th. Seven of the leaders 
were arrested. These men were taken out of 
the custody of the military; and the fighting 
began when the soldiers attempted to arrest one 

[93] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Three 
hundred 
rebels 
kiUed 



Fiasco at 
Toronto 



Mac- 
kenzie 
In exile 



of Papineau's associates at St. Denis. There 
the rebels fortified a stone barn. In attempting 
to take the barn, Colonel Gore, who was in 
command of the military, lost six men killed, 
and ten were wounded. 

Between the 6th and the iid of November 
there was fighting at St. Charles, St. Eustache, 
and Benoit. Two thousand soldiers were en- 
gaged. The fatalities were mostly on the side 
of the rebels. Three hundred of Papineau's 
followers lost their lives. Papineau fled to the 
United States, and was a refugee there until 1845.^ 

The rising at Toronto involved no great loss 
of life. Mackenzie's plan was to seize govern- 
ment house. His followers, who numbered at 
most not more than 750 men, assembled at Mont- 
gomery's tavern on the outskirts of the town. 
They were quickly dispersed by 1200 volunteers. 
Five of the rebels lost their lives. 

Mackenzie fled to Navy Island in the Niagara 
River. There he issued a proclamation; set up 
a provisional government; printed paper money — 
and otherwise introduced a touch of burlesque 
into the rising. He was soon dislodged from 
Navy Island, and fled to the state of New York, 
where, after serving a term in prison for viola- 
tion of the neutrality laws of the United States, 
he was an exile until a general amnesty act was 
passed by the legislature of the united provinces 
of Quebec and Ontario in 1849. 

1 Cf. Boyd, 45-76. 
C94] 



rebellion 
that 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

There was never any prospect of military sue- a 
cess for rebellion in either Upper or Lower Canada. 

But if a revolution is a rebellion that succeeds, effected 

the rebellion of 1837 was a revolution. In its f^"^°'"- 

-" ' . tion 

way it was as successful as the American revolu- 
tion. It was the only time after 1783 that Brit- 
ish troops were in action against armed white 
British subjects in any of the British colonies; 
and all that is beneficent in the modern era of 
British colonial government dates from the Papi- 
neau and Mackenzie rebellions, and the epoch- 
making mission of the Earl of Durham to 
Canada, by which the rebellions were immedi- 
ately followed. 

The Melbourne administration of 183 5-1 841 wniiam 
was in power in England at the time of the re 
hellions. William IV died in June, 1837. The of 

death of the king gave the administration a "'*"**** 
... . govern- 

freer hand in coping with the serious problems ment 

of Canada. 

William IV's conception of colonies, and of 
the relation of the sovereign to them, was very 
similar to that of George III. When Lord 
Gosford was sent out to Quebec as governor- 
general in 1835, the king told him that he would 
never consent to the establishment of an elective 
legislative council. The king held that control 
of the legislative council, by nomination, was 
one of the prerogatives of the crown. "It was," 
he said, "a safeguard for the preservation of the 
wise and happy connection between the mother 

[95 ] 



IV's con- 
ception 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Queen 
Victoria 
and the 
new era 
in British 
colonial 
policy 



Legis- 
lation at 
West- 
minster 



Character 

of 

Durham 



country and the colonies, which it was both his 
duty and his incHnation to maintain." 

The development of the British cabinet had 
not reached its present stage in 1835. William 
IV was the last sovereign to assume an attitude 
of this kind towards his ministers; and for the 
United Kingdom, as well as for the colonies, an 
era of less monarchical rule began with the ad- 
vent of Queen Victoria. 

II. Durham's Mission and the Durham Report 

The rebellions necessitated immediate legisla- 
tion at Westminster. Accordingly on January 
16, 1838, a bill was introduced in the house of 
commons suspending the constitution of Lower 
Canada for four years, and authorizing Durham, 
the new governor-general, in concert with an 
executive council of five members, to frame ordi- 
nances for the province. Durham was further 
authorized to investigate and report on condi- 
tions in all the British North American provinces, 
and his commission constituted him governor- 
general of all the provinces except Newfoundland. 

Durham was in his forty-sixth year when he 
was intrusted with this mission to Canada. He 
was a man of great wealth, derived largely from 
coal mines in the county of Durham; and he 
was son-in-law to Grey, the Whig premier of 
reform bill fame. He was one of the most aggres- 
sive members of the cabinet during the crises 
over the reform bill of 1830-183 2; always ready 

C96] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

to force the struggle with William IV; always 
ready to fight for the bill either in the cabinet 
or in parliament; and the politically courageous 
part Durham had in framing and carrying the 
reform bill would have given him a conspicuous 
place in British history even if his achievements 
of 1 830-1 83 2 had not been overshadowed by 
his contribution of 1838 to the inauguration of 
the new era in British colonial policy. 

Durham's famous report has been more fre- Durham's 
quently reprinted, more frequently edited and ^^jg^ 
annotated, and more widely read over the English- widely 
speaking world than any other British state paper ^^^^ 
of the nineteenth century.^ He was in Canada paper 
only from May 29 to November i, 1838. He °^^ 
resigned and returned to England,^ because the teenth 
Melbourne government, holding that he had "^*"^ 
exceeded his powers, disallowed an ordinance of 
June 28, 1838, banishing eight rebels to Bermuda. 
He was succeeded in August, 1839, by Poulett 
Thomson, afterwards Lord Sydenham, who as a 
colonial governor ranks second only to Durham 
in the history of the establishment of responsible 
government in the dominions. 

Condemnation of the entire system of govern- 
ment at Quebec and Toronto was the burden of 
Durham's report. It substantiated nearly every 
allegation of the reformers in Canada and of the 

^ The authoritative edition is edited, with an introduction, 
by Sir Charles P. Lucas, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1912. 
2 He died July 28, 1840. 

[97] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Durham's 
condem- 
nation 
of the 
govern- 
ments at 
Quebec 
and 
Toronto 



Share 
of the 
colonial 
office in 
misrule 
in Upper 
and 
Lower 
Canada 



Friction 

between 

Upper 

and 

Lower 

Canada 



radicals who had supported them in parHament 
at Westminster. It demonstrated that ohgar- 
chies had ruled in both provinces; that there 
was no system of municipal government — that 
in this respect Lower and Upper Canada com- 
pared badly with the New England states; that 
there was no system of education; that justice 
was badly administered; and that the manage- 
ment of crown lands was characterized by job- 
bery and fraud. 

The colonial office in London was also con- 
demned; for Durham recalled that there were 
eight colonial secretaries from 1827 to 1837, and 
that the policy of each secretary had been more 
or less different from that of his predecessor. In 
a word, Durham stigmatized the whole system 
as vicious. He rejoiced that it had broken 
down. 

In Lower Canada much of the trouble was due 
to race antagonism. In addition there had been 
friction between Upper and Lower Canada aris- 
ing out of a common use of the St. Lawrence; 
for Upper Canada was entirely dependent on the 
tidewater ports of the lower province. This 
friction had been so serious that at one time 
there was a plan to create a third province out 
of the Island of Montreal. In Montreal the 
English were in control; and such a plan would 
have ended the dependence of Upper Canada on 
ports that were under the control of French- 
Canadians. 

[98] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



American influence on political conditions in 
Canada in the years from 1783 to 1837 has already 
been noted. More evidence of this influence is 
contained in Durham's report, and in his recom- 
mendations as to the system of government that 
should be adopted at the great crisis of 183 7-1 840. 

The suggestion was put forward, in plans pro- 
posed to Durham for the government of Lower 
Canada, that as a permanent or as a temporary 
and intermediate scheme, the government of the 
French province should be constituted on an en- 
tirely despotic footing, or on one that would vest 
it entirely in the hands of the British minority. 

"It is proposed," wrote Durham, "either to 
place the legislative authority in a governor, with 
a council formed of the heads of the British party, 
or to contrive some scheme of representation by 
which a minority, with the form of representation, 
is to deprive the majority of all voice in the man- 
agement of its own affairs." ^ 

The adoption of such a plan would have meant 
the indefinite continuation of the dreary period 
of colonial history of 1791-1837. But at this, 
the greatest crisis in British colonial history be- 
tween 1783 and the great war, the influence of 
what the late Sir Richard Cartwright, for forty- 
five years a member of parliament at Ottawa, 
liked to describe as "Canada's only neighbor,'* 
again made itself felt on the destinies of what is 
now the greatest British oversea dominion. 
^ Cf. Lucas, II, 296-297. 

C99: 



American 
Influence 
again 



An 
auto- 
cratic 
govern- 
ment 
sug- 
gested 
for 
Quebec 

Dur- 
ham's 
con- 
dem- 
nation 
of this 
sug- 
gestion 



" Cana- 
da's 
only 
neigh- 
bor" 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Influence It was an influence not of the government at 
of popular Washington, but of the people of the United 

opinion ° ,. , , , i- i • i 

States, indirectly rather than directly exercised. 
It turned the scale with Durham. Durham's 
report turned the scale with the Melbourne gov- 
ernment, and through the government with par- 
liament at Westminster. 

Durham thus described American influence, 
and how, in his opinion, it would aflPect Canada, 
if a despotic government were established at 
Quebec: 

The maintenance of an absolute form of government on 
any part of the American continent can never continue for 
any long time without exciting a general feeling in the United 
States against a power of which the existence is secured by 
means so odious to the people; and as I rate the preserva- 
tion of the present general sympathy of the United States 
with the policy of our government in Lower Canada as a 
matter of the greatest importance, I should be sorry that 
the feeling should be changed for one which, if prevalent 
among the people, must extend over the surrounding prov- 
inces. The influence of such an opinion would not only act 
very strongly on the entire French population, and keep up 
among them a sense of injury and a determination of resist- 
ance to the government, but would lead to just as great dis- 
content among the English.^ 

Legis- The experience in Canada of a government not 
lative responsible to the people did not, in Durham's 
Upper and Opinion, justify a belief that an absolute govern- 
Lower rnent in Lower Canada would be well adminis- 
urgedby tcrcd. Durham was confident that the great 



Durham 



^ Lucas, II, 297. 

C 100] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



reforms in the institutions of the French province, 
which must be made before it could be a well- 
ordered and flourishing community, could be 
effected by no legislature which did not repre- 
sent a great mass of public opinion. He was con- 
vinced that tranquillity could only be restored 
by subjecting Lower Canada "to the vigorous 
rule of an English majority, and that the only 
efficacious government would be that formed by 
a legislative union." ^ 

At this time the estimated population of Upper 
Canada was 400,000. The number of English 
and Scottish people in Lower Canada was 150,000, 
and of French 450,000. If these estimates were 
correct, Durham believed that the union of the 
provinces would not only give a clear English 
majority, but one which would be increased every 
year by immigration from the United Kingdom. 

Durham was convinced, moreover, that the 
French, when once placed in a minority by the 
legitimate course of events, and the working of 
natural causes, "would abandon their vain hopes 
of nationality"; for he held that the union of 
Scotland with England in 1707, and the union of 
Ireland with Great Britain in 1800, taught "us 
how effectually the strong arm of a popular legis- 
lature would compel the obedience of a refrac- 
tory population,^ and the hopelessness of success 

^ Cf. Lucas, n, 307. 

^ Sir Charles Lucas notes that the history of Ireland from 
1838 has hardly borne this out. Lucas, II, 308, footnote. 

C loi ] 



Popu- 
lation 
of Upper 
and 
Lower 
Canada 
In 1838 



Durham 
and the 
national 
aspira- 
tions of 
French 
Cana- 
dians 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

would gradually subdue the existing animosities, 

and incline the French-Canadian population to 

acquiesce in their new state of political existence." ^ 

Advan- Union of the provinces, according to Durham, 

tagesof would result in two advantages. The British 

union to . . 

Upper would control the new legislative assembly, as 
Canada ^gjj ^g ^j^g legislative council; and union would 
end for Upper Canada, for which there was no 
suggestion of despotic government, the disputes as 
to the division, or amount of revenue, collected on 
imports into Canada at the St. Lawrence ports. 

Lower Canada in the twenties and thirties of 
last century, as in the second decade of the twen- 
tieth, was the most self-sustaining area of the 
North American continent. French-Canadians 
imported little from the United Kingdom or from 
the United States. The needs of the British 
population in Upper Canada were greater and 
more varied. Their importations from the United 
Kingdom — clothing and other manufactured 
articles — were comparatively large. 
Import All import duties levied by the legislatures of 

duplies ^j^g British North American provinces until 1858 
revenue were .for revenue only, and most of the revenues 
°°^^ of the provinces were raised by these duties. 
The disputes between Upper and Lower Canada 
were as to the division of the duties. 

Realizing that most of the duties were finally 
paid by the people of Upper Canada, this prov- 
ince was long aggrieved by the division of the 
^ Lucas, II, 308. 
[ 102] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

money collected by the customs officers of Lower 
Canada at Montreal and Quebec. Durham be- 
lieved that with union the surplus revenue of 
Lower Canada would meet the deficiency of 
Upper Canada, and that Lower Canada would 
be placed "beyond the possibility of locally 
jobbing the surplus revenue." Upper Canada 
would, by union, also secure access to the sea; 
and Lower Canada would pay its fair share to 
the cost of the canals in Upper Canada, which, 
as Durham rightly insisted, were as much the 
concern of one province as of the other. 

The saving of public money which would be influence 
effected by the union of the governmental estab- °* 

-' ° union on 

lishments would, Durham contended, supply pariia- 

the means of conducting the general government ™^'** 

on a more efficient scale. "And," he added, in west- 

summing up the advantages of union, "responsi- °^^*®' 
bility of the executive would be secured by the 
increased weight which the representative body 
of the United Provinces would bring to bear on 
the imperial government and legislature." 

Durham was wrong in the assumption that where 

with the union of the provinces race antagonism ^^ , 

and the struggle of the French-Canadians for assump- 

nationality would gradually disappear. It was ^°^^ 

race antagonism, and the deadlocks which ensued wrong; 

from it, that forced on Confederation in 1864- ^^^"^^ 

. . ^ they 

1867. He was wrong also m assummg that econ- were 
omy, coupled with greater efficiency, would result ^^^* 
from union. But he was absolutely right when 

[ 103] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

he assumed that the increased weight of the 
representative body would have influence with 
the imperial government; for it was the legisla- 
tive assembly of the United Provinces that in 
the years from 1841 to 1849 forced the conces- 
sion of responsible government — an executive 
dependent on a majority in the assembly — and 
again it was the assembly that in 1858-1859 
insisted on the concession by Great Britain of 
liberty to the United Provinces to frame their 
own customs tariff, regardless of British manu- 
facturing interests. 

III. The Legislative Union of 184.0 

Con- The Melbourne government acted on Durham's 

^^!^^«°^ recommendation that Upper and Lower Canada 

or 1840- _ ^ _ 

1867 should be united in one province. By the act of 
1840, which established this union, there was 
created the constitution of 1 840-1 867. The bill 
was introduced in the house of commons by Lord 
John Russell. Neither in the commons, nor in 
the lords, was the discussion in general from the 
Whig or Conservative standpoints. 
A In spite of appeals from the Duke of Welling- 

measiwe ^qj^ 1 Qj^|y eight ot nine Conservatives in the 

supported ' ^ & 

by both house of commons opposed the bill. Gladstone 
political ^^g g^jjj ^ Conservative in 1840; but he and 

parties ' ' . 

atwest- Stanley and Peel, also Conservatives, were as 
anxious as Russell and his colleagues of the Whig 
administration that Canada should have a better 
1 Cf. Parker, "Sir Robert Peel," III, 379. 
[ 104] 



minster 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



form of government than experience had demon- 
strated was possible under the constitution of 1791. 

The debates at Westminster were character- 
ized by frequent expressions of the conviction 
that Great Britain could not long hold colonies 
with large white populations; and that Canada 
would break away when it was ready. Peel 
and Gladstone gave expression to these convic- 
tions. They were anxious, in the meantime, that 
Great Britain should do all that she could to 
establish a beneficent political civilization for 
the colonies. 

Further legislation for Canada was enacted in 
the session of 1840. A bill was passed empowering 
the legislature of the United Provinces to deal 
with the clergy reserves without interference from 
parliament. The plan was to divide the money 
received from the sale of the clergy reserves among 
the churches. The Episcopal church was to have 
the largest share; next was to be the Presbyterian 
portion; and smaller shares were to be assigned 
to the Methodist and other churches. 

This plan was adopted at once by the legisla- 
ture of the United Provinces. It was in opera- 
tion until 1854, when the clergy reserves were 
secularized. From 1841 to 1854 each church was 
free to expend the money it received at will, 
whether for the support of its clergy, the erec- 
tion of places of worship, or for education.^ 

^ Cf. Stimson, "History of the Separation of Church and 
State in Canada," 56-57. 

C 105] 



Con- 
viction 
that the 
colonies 
would 
demand 
inde- 
pendence 



The 
clergy 
re- 
serves — 
a free 
hand for 
the new 
legis- 
lature 



The 

clergy 

reserves 

from 

1840 to 

1864 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Legis- 
lature 
of the 
United 
Provinces 



Urban 
develop- 
ment In 
Upper 
Canada 
from 
1791 to 
1840 



Urban 
constitu- 
encies 
in the 
new 
repre- 
sentative 
system 



The new constitution for the United Provinces 
that was enacted by parliament in 1840 provided 
(i) for a legislative council, nominated like the 
legislative councils at Quebec and Toronto, the 
members to hold office for life; and (2) for a 
legislative assembly elected on the same fran- 
chises as the assemblies of 1 792-1 840. For mem- 
bership of these assemblies there had been no 
property qualification; for membership of the 
new legislature ownership of landed property of 
the value of £500 was a prerequisite. 

In the period from 1791 to 1840 eight towns 
had come into existence in Upper Canada. These 
were Toronto, Kingston, Hamilton, Brockville, 
Cornwall, Niagara, London, and Bytown — 
known since 1854 as Ottawa. With the excep- 
tion of London and Ottawa, all these towns — 
now cities — are on Lake Ontario, a fact which 
indicates the importance of water transport in 
the early settlement of Canada. By the imperial 
act of 1840 two members were assigned to 
Toronto, and one each to the other seven towns. 

Urban development in Lower Canada had pro- 
ceeded more slowly than in Upper Canada. The 
French-Canadian is usually not a town dweller. 
Sherbrooke, in the eastern counties of Lower 
Canada, — counties that were settled between 
1800 and 1840 chiefly by immigrants from the 
United Kingdom, — was the only new town suffi- 
ciently important in 1840 for separate represen- 
tation in the assembly. 

[106] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



Sherbrooke was assigned one member. Two 
each were allotted to Montreal and Quebec, and 
one to Three Rivers. There were, therefore, in 
the new legislature fifteen representatives of 
urban constituencies. 

To each province were allotted ten members 
of the legislative council. To each province also 
there were allotted forty-two members of the 
assembly — a provision that for ten years was 
a distinct advantage to Upper Canada, and a 
grievance with Lower Canada. In the fifties 
and sixties, when immigration had given Upper 
Canada a population larger than that of the 
French province, the position was reversed; 
and out of this reversal of the position at the 
time of the union of the provinces there was 
developed the agitation in Upper Canada for rep- 
resentation by population — one of the most 
vigorous and persistent agitations of the decade 
preceding Confederation.^ 

There was a provision in the constitution that 
the legislature might add to the number of mem- 
bers of the assembly. In 1853 the total number 
of members was increased from 84 to 130. The 
census of 1852 had shown that the population 
of Upper Canada was then 60,000 in excess of 
that of Lower Canada. But 65 members were 
apportioned to each province; and the French- 
Canadians had so easily the upper hand in the 
legislative assembly that the reform demanded 
* Cf. Clarke, "Sixty Years in Upper Canada," 65. 

C107] 



Legis- 
lative 
council 



French 
Canada 
secures 
the 
upper 
hand 
in the 
legis- 
lative 
assembly 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Preemi- 
nence 
assigned 
totlie 
English 
language 



Municipal 
govern- 
ment 



by Upper Canada could not be obtained, and 
was not obtained until the principle of repre- 
sentation according to population was embodied 
in the act of Confederation.^ 

Bills introduced into the legislature, and all 
official documents for record, it was enacted in 
the organic law of 1840, must be in the English 
language; but this provision was not to prevent 
copies being printed in French. As in the legis- 
lature at Quebec from 1792 to the rebellion, both 
English and French were used in debate in the 
legislature of the United Provinces; and from 
1 841 to the present day there has never been a 
time when French-Canadian members, either of 
the legislature of the United Provinces, or of 
the house of commons or senate at Ottawa, have 
not freely exercised this privilege of speaking in 
French in debate. 

Provision was also made in the new constitu- 
tion for meeting a need to which Durham had 
called attention when he noted the efficiency of 
municipal government in the United States, and 
the fact that in the United States even where 
municipal institutions were "lacking or imper- 
fect, the energy and self-governing habits of 
the Anglo-Saxon population enable it to com- 
bine whenever a necessity arises." ^ 

There was a clause in the act making it manda- 
tory on the government of the United Provinces 
to constitute townships, and organize municipal 

1 Cf. Boyd, 143-147. 2 Lucas, II, 112-113. 

[108: 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

government. A temporary measure for this Munici- 

purpose was passed by the legislature in 1841. p^*^°*^®s 

A municipal code was framed for Lower Canada Lower 

in 1845; and in 1849 a municipal code was en- ^^ 

acted for Upper Canada, "which at last gave to Canada 

the people the system of self-government which 

they now enjoy, and established the principle 

that local control of financial matters of local 

interest should be vested in the taxpayers." ^ 

Until 1846, when Great Britain adopted free Regu- 

trade and abandoned her old commercial policy, ^^**°° °' 

^ -' ' corn- 
duties levied on imports into all British colonies merce 

were determined by parliament at Westminster, ]ll^^^^ 
and these duties were fixed with a view to Brwsh 
affording British manufacturers a monopoly of ^^^' 
all colonial markets. Accordingly under the con- 
stitution of 1840 the imperial government again 
reserved the power of imposing duties for the 
regulation of commerce. The revenues from 
these customs duties were to flow into the treas- 
ury of the United Provinces; and, subject to 
two conditions, the legislature was conceded 
control of the raising of all other revenues and 
the spending of all revenues. 

These conditions were: (i) the provision of other 
a civil list for the salaries of the governor-general 



reser- 
vations 



^ Clarke, 95-96. Clarke, who was clerk of the legislature 
of Ontario from 1891 to 1907, in writing of the municipal 
code of 1849 and its amendments — page 96 — says, "It 
has given us a system far excelling that adopted in many 
states of the American Union." 

C 1093 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Popular 
demands 
ignored 
in framing 
the new 
consti- 
tution 



Two of 

these 
demands 
subse- 
quently 
conceded 



and the judges; and (2) the provision of a con- 
solidated fund for the salaries of provincial offi- 
cials. Over the civil list that determines the 
salaries of the governor-general and the judges, 
and over the consolidated fund, parliament at 
Westminster retained control until 1847. 

The only bills reserved — bills to which the 
governor-general could not give the royal assent 
— were bills affecting religion and crown lands. 

Three demands of the long agitation in Lower 
and Upper Canada which had preceded the 
rebellion of 1837 were not conceded in the act 
of 1840: the legislative council was not made 
elective; judges and civil servants were not 
excluded from the legislature; and there was not 
a word in the act concerning the epoch-making 
claim, urged in Upper Canada as far back as 
1828, for responsible government, a claim that 
had been emphasized in Papineau's platform of 

1835. 

It was 1853 before the constitution of 1840 
was amended to exclude judges and civil serv- 
ants from the assembly and the legislative coun- 
cil; and it was 1856 before an amending act was 
passed at Westminster admitting elected mem- 
bers to the legislative council. Elected members 
were of the council from 1856 until Confedera- 
tion. 

At the time the constitution of 1840 was before 
the house of commons. Lord John Russell, who 
was in charge of the bill, held tenaciously to 

[no] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

nomination for legislative councils. He was sure Nomi- 
that the connection between the colonies and ?^^^ 

legis- 

Great Britain would be in danger if there were lative 
elected legislative councils. But like other <=o^°'=fs 

o as links 

fears entertained at Westminster between 1783 of 
and 1887 in regard to the colonies, there was no ^'"p^® 
ground for this apprehension. Seven of the nine 
provincial legislatures of Canada today have no 
second chamber; and even the most ardent 
friends of the senate at Ottawa, if it has any such 
friends,'^ never advance the claim that the nomi- 
nated senate is of any peculiar value in main- 
taining the imperial connection. 

IV. The Struggle for Responsible Government 

The claim for responsible government was con- Fortunes 
ceded in 1841. The concession was withdrawn °^^^^ 

^ move- 

in 1843, ^^^ was completely and finally conceded ment 

in 1849. Its first and its final concessions were ('°™, 

^^ . . 1841 to 

due, not to anything actually stated in the act i849 
of 1840, although that memorable act was the 
key to all the constitutional freedom now en- 
joyed by all the dominions. They were due to 
the statesmanship and democratic spirit of Syden- 
ham, Bagot, and Elgin, three of the four govern- 
ors-general who were in office from 1839 to 1850, 
and also, it is important to note, to the new 
policy literally forced on Downing Street by the 
Liberals of Upper and Lower Canada, who were 

^ Cf. The Round Table, London, III, December, 1912, to 
September, 1913, 719-722. 

[Ill] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Syden- 
ham's 
con- 
cessions 
to the 
demand 



Cabinet 
govern- 
ment as 
at West- 
minster 



Principles 
on which 
Sydenham 
acted 



in control of the legislative assembly of the United 
Provinces, during the first decade of the consti- 
tution of 1840. 

Durham was succeeded by Sydenham in 
November, 1839. The new governor-general 
recognized the justice of the long-sustained 
demand for responsible government, and the 
wisdom of prompt concession. Under the old 
regime at Toronto and Quebec, the executive 
councils were generally composed of men in 
political opposition to the majority of the legis- 
lative assembly; and the governor, at each of 
these capitals, usually took extreme care to have 
every act of his own go forth on the responsibility 
of the executive council.^ 

In the first session of the legislature of the 
United Provinces — a session held at Toronto in ; 
1 841 — Sydenham chose the executive council 
from members of the legislature who were of the 
political party in the majority in the assembly. 
By so doing he established cabinet government 
in Canada on the same basis as at Westminsterl 
Sydenham's conception of the functions and duties 
of a governor of a colony having representative 
institutions was so novel that his action forms 
landmark in British colonial history, scarcely 
second in importance to Durham's famous reportj 

The principles of Sydenham's policy werd 
(i) that as governor-general — as the represen- 
tative of the crown in Canada — he was himseli 



C112] 



^ Cf. Scrope, "Lord Sydenham," 143. 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



responsible to the imperial authorities alone; and 
(2) that it was his duty so to form and conduct 
the government as to insure harmony with the 
majority of the elected legislative assembly.^ 

Sydenham died at Kingston, Ontario's most 
beautiful lakeside city, in September, 1841. He 
was only forty-two. He was not of the aristo- 
cratic governing class of England — not of the 
territorial aristocracy from which at this time 
the governing class was almost exclusively drawn. 
He was not a peer until 1840. 

In his earlier life Sydenham had been a mer- 
chant in a large way of business in the city of 
London. He has the distinction of being the 
first man of the commercial class, after the re- 
form of the house of commons in 1832, to attain 
front rank in imperial politics; and he had no 
successor from the commercial or manufacturing 
class in the wide field of imperial politics until 
Chamberlain became colonial secretary in 1895. 
No other man of the capitalistic or commercial 
classes was appointed to a colonial governorship 
until Lord Brassey, a great railway contractor, ^ 
who was created a peer, was appointed governor 
of Victoria in 1895. 

Queen Victoria objected to men of the com- 
mercial class as colonial governors. In 1856 the 
Queen vetoed a suggestion by Labouchere, secre- 
tary for the colonies, in Palmerston's adminis- 
tration, that James Wilson, a manufacturer, and 



A mer- 
chant's 
success 
in empire 
politics 



Men of 
the com- 
mercial 
class in 
imperial 
politics 



^ Cf. Scrope, 273. 



[113] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Queen 
Victoria's 
objections 
to men 
of com- 
merce as 
colonial 
governors 



Men of 
the British 
governing 
class as 
colonial 
governors 



a financier of national fame, who was also founder 
of the Economist, should be appointed governor 
of Victoria, Australia. It was then a colony 
with representative institutions, but not in the 
enjoyment of responsible government. Its popu- 
lation was much less than that of many of the 
parishes of London in 1856. 

"Mr, Wilson," the Queen wrote, "would not be 
at all a proper person to be governor of so large 
and important a colony as Victoria. It ought to 
be a man of higher position and standing, and 
who could represent his sovereign adequately." ^ 

The ideas expressed in the Queen's letter of 
1856 as to men who were unfit for colonial gov- 
ernorships have, as a rule, held good at thea 
colonial office from that day to the present time.l 
Governorships in the dominions — offices ordi- 
narily only of dignity, form, and pageantry, 
under the system of responsible government — 
have gone almost exclusively to men of the terri- 
torial governing class; and as a rule these offices,^ 
which offer no career, go to men of second 01 
third rank in political life at Westminster.^ 

^ Benson and Esher, "Letters of Queen Victoria," III,] 
24-27. 

2 Munro-Ferguson, who in 1886 was elected to the house! 
of commons from Leith Burghs (Scotland), was in 19141 
appointed governor-general of the Commonwealth of Aus- 
tralia. "They were now," he said, at a farewell meeting of I 
his constituents at Leith, on February 10, 1914, "giving 
their late member a first-class political funeral." — Herald, 
Glasgow, February 11, 1914. 

[114] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



Sydenham had no experience of colonial ad- 
ministration before he arrived at Montreal in 
1839. He was of a different type and mental 
caliber from the governors-general and lieuten- 
ant-governors who were at Quebec or Toronto 
from 1 79 1 to the rebellion. There were of these 
governors several with political ability; but most 
of them were military men who needed a salaried 
job. Sydenham was one of three men — Durham, 
Sydenham, and Elgin — whose genius for gov- 
ernment, and whose courage, vision, and popular 
sympathies carried Canada successfully through 
the great crisis of 1 837-1 850, and made possi- 
ble the self-governing dominions and their loyalty 
to Great Britain. 

"Lord Durham," writes Sir Charles Lucas, 
England's foremost authority on British colonial 
history, "preached his gospel and died. Lord 
Sydenham, before he too died, set the political 
machine running in the right direction. Then 
the machine went on, the way widened, the views 
widened. Men grew up to contemplate a nation, 
and after contemplating to create it. Lord Dur- 
ham's report gave the inspiration. Sydenham, 
with his combination of strong popular sympa- 
thies and great business capacity, showed how to 
begin putting principles into practice." 

"The history of Canada," continues Lucas, 
who was under-secretary at the colonial office 
from 1897 to 191 1, and next in importance to the 
secretary for the colonies, "has been on the whole 

C115] 



Syden- 
ham 
a new 
type of 
colonial 
governor 



Achieve- 
ments 
of 

Durham 
and 
Syden- 
ham 



Lucas's 
tribute 
to their 
work 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

a history of singular good fortune; and not the 
least part of this good fortune has been that Lord 
Durham should have been forthcoming at the 
particular time when he went to Canada; and 
that Lord Sydenham should have been available 
as his successor. It would be difficult to find in 
the chronicles of any country two men who, 
within little more than three years in all, did so 
much to help the coming time." ^ 
Bagot Sir Charles Bagot, a member of Lincoln's 

continues ^^^ ^^^ j^^j l^ggj^ ^f ^j^g house of commons, and 

Syden- . 

ham's who had served as parliamentary under-secretary 
policy £qj. foreign affairs with Canning as his chief, and 
who had been minister at Washington, and am- 
bassador at Petrograd and The Hague, succeeded] 
Sydenham as governor-general in 1841. He was] 
appointed by the Peel government — a Conserv-I 
ative administration that had come into powen 
in September, 1841. 

Bagot, who in British politics was a Tory^j 
continued Sydenham's policy. At a crisis ir 
Quebec, he formed his government "in unisor 
with the known will of the majority of the popu-| 
lar assembly." ^ Bagot, in fact, was so situated] 
that he had to adopt Sydenham's principles of 
government.^ Acting on the broad principle] 
that the constitutional majority had the right toj 

^ Lucas, "Durham Report," I, 301-302. 

2 Parker, "Sir Robert Peel," III, 382. 

^ Cf. speech by Roebuck, house of commons. May 36^ 

1842. 

C116] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

rule under the constitution, he appointed Louis 
HyppoHte Lafontaine to the executive council, 
in association with Robert Baldwin, the leader of 
the Liberals of Ontario. 

Lafontaine had succeeded Papineau as leader Men of 
of the French-Canadian Liberals; and with La- ^f ,„ 

rebellion 

fontaine's appointment to the executive council of 1837 
there was also the appointment to office of ^ppointed 
several French-Canadians who had been con- office 
cerned in the rebellion — men who belonged to 
what Wellington stigmatized as "a party tainted 
with treason." ^ 

"What a fool," declared Wellington, "the WeUing- 
man (Bagot) must have been to act as he has ^^j^_ 
done! And what stuff and nonsense he has nation 
written! And what a pother he makes about his 
policy and his measures, when there are no meas- 
ures but rolling himself and his country in the 
mire!" "The duke," Peel was told, "can talk 
of nothing else; and is in a perfect fury of anger 
and indignation." ^ 

Bagot's efforts to manage what Peel described 
as "the fierce democracy of Canada," developed 

1 Parker, III, 384. 

2 Parker, III, 382-383. Wellington died in 1852. With 
the exception of the Earl of Derby, who was thrice premier 
between 1852 and 1868, Wellington was the last British 
statesman who dreaded an extension of self-government to 
the colonies. He was the last to learn the lesson of the Ameri- 
can revolution. He was certainly the last statesman to hold 
the idea that a British colony, which had the United States 
as neighbor, could long continue under military rule. 

C117] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

a situation that Wellington feared would be fatal 
to the connection of the United Provinces with 
Great Britain. What equally troubled Welling- 
ton — perhaps troubled him even more — was a 
dread that Bagot's concession to the democ- 
racy of French-Canada might be fatal to Peel's 
cabinet, of which he was a member without 
portfolio.^ 

Bagot had no friend at court. Long before his 
dispatches had arrived in London — dispatches 
that came as a thunderbolt to Wellington — as 
early, in fact, as September 9, 1841, Queen Vic- 
toria had regretted her formal approval of Bagot's 
appointment as governor-general. "The Queen," 
she wrote to Peel, "cannot refrain from saying 
that she cannot quite approve of Sir Charles 
Bagot's appointment, as from what she hears of 
his qualities she does not think that they are of 
a character quite to suit in the arduous and diffi- 
cult position in which he will be placed." ^ 

After much commotion within Peel's cabinet, 
Bagot was censured. It was hopeless for him 
to attempt to continue as governor-general. He 
asked for his recall. His request was complied 
with; and he died in Canada soon after the 
arrival of his successor, Sir Charles T. Met- 
calfe. 

Bagot made his stand for Sydenham's enlight- 
ened policy. He was highly regarded as a colonial 

1 Cf. Parker, III, 382. 

^ Benson and Esher, I, 405-406. 

C118] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

reformer by radicals at Westminster such as Roe- Bagot as 
buck and Hume/ and by one at least of his l^°^f 
biographers he is credited with having inaugu- 
rated responsible government in Canada.^ 

V. Metcalfe's Repudiation of Responsible 
Government 

Unlike Durham, Sydenham, and Bagot, Met- Met- 
calfe, who was created a peer in 1845, had had l^^J^ 
a varied experience of governorships before he ideas of 
reached Canada in 1843. He was then fifty-eight ''°^°^_ 
years of age. He had been, from the time he ment 
left Eton in 1800, to 1838, in the service of the 
East India Company — an indifferent school for 
a governor of a colony, with representative insti- 
tutions, Hke the united provinces of Upper and 
Lower Canada, and a colony, moreover, that was 
vigorously pushing for responsible government.* 
Metcalfe's last Indian appointment was as lieu- 
tenant-governor of the northwest provinces. 
From 1839 to 1842 he had been governor of 
Jamaica, where he had been eminently success- 
ful in adjusting relations between the English 
sugar planters and the 400,000 negroes who had 
been Hberated from slavery in 1838. 

Metcalfe did not follow the policy of Syden- 

1 Cf. Parliamentary Debates, Series III, vol. 75, pp. 33 
and 61. 

2 Cf. "Dictionary of National Biography," Supplement I, 
98; Boyd, "Cartier," 72. 

3 Walrond, "Letters and Journals of the Earl of Elgin," 33. 

C119] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

ham and Bagot. He refused recognition of the 
principle of responsible government — any recog- 
nition that would satisfy Canadian political 
leaders. At the time Bagot resigned, the Lafon- 
taine-Baldwin ministry was in power. This was 
the ministry whose formation had been the cause 
of Bagot's loss of prestige in Downing Street. 

Kingston was then the seat of government of 
the United Provinces; and Metcalfe, soon after 
he had established himself in that city as governor- 
general, undertook to make himself practically 
minister of the colony.^ He refused to accept the 
recommendations of the executive council in 
regard to public appointments. He "refused to 
follow the advice of his ministers in matters 
which were within their absolute province." ^ 
Furthermore, when he was interviewed by a dep- 
utation of electors from Upper Canada, who 
asked that he follow the constitutional practice 
initiated by Sydenham, Metcalfe made a speech, 
much more suited to the political atmosphere of 
India than to that of any British North Ameri- 
can province after the rebellion of 1837. 

"If you mean," said Metcalfe, "that the gover- 
nor is to have no exercise of his own judgment in 
the administration of the government, and is to 
be a mere tool in the hands of the council, I totally 
disagree with you. That is a condition to which 

1 Cf. Speech by Earl of EUenborough, H. of L., June 15, 
1854. 

2 Speech by Cartier, at St. Denis, 1844, Boyd, 88. 

[ 120] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

I never can submit, and which her majesty's 
government, in my opinion, can never sanction.^ 
If you mean that every word and deed of the 
governor is to be previously submitted for the 
advice of the council, then you propose what, 
besides being unnecessary, is utterly impossible, 
consistent with the due despatch of business." ^ 

Metcalfe's difficulties with the Lafontaine-Bald- Met- 
win administration had arisen over an appoint- «=^®'^ 

.... con- 

ment in the civil service — over patronage. In ception 
his speech Metcalfe took up this question, and °*^^ 
expressed himself in strong terms in regard to the pouacai 
claims of the ministers. "If you mean," he con- ^^^°^- 
tinued, "that the patronage of the crown is to 
be surrendered for exclusive party purposes to 
the council, instead of being distributed to reward 
merit, to meet just claims, and to promote the 
efficiency of the public service, then we are at 
issue again. Such a surrender of the prerogative 

^ "The claim for responsible government," said Stanley, 
secretary of state for the colonies, in defending Metcalfe's 
policy and administration in Canada, in the house of com- 
njons on May 30, 1844, "is inconsistent with the existence 
of monarchical institutions; and in the next place with the 
relations that should exist between a colony and the mother 
country. It is inconsistent with monarchical government 
that the governor who is responsible should be stripped of 
all authority and all power, and be reduced to that degree 
of political power which is vested in the constitutional sov- 
ereign of the country." 

2 Egerton and Grant, "Canadian Constitutional Docu- 
ments," 295. 

C121] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



His 

distlnc- 
tlon as a 
governor- 
general 
of 
Canada 



of the crown ^ is, in my opinion, incompatible 
with the existence of a British colony." ^ 

There had been no utterance from a governor- 
general in this key since Head's rebuff to Mac- 
kenzie's constituents when they petitioned against 
his exclusion from the assembly at Toronto. Met- 
calfe has the distinction of being the last governor- 
general of Canada to use such language to his 
ministers or to their constituents. 

Responsible government meant nearly all that 
Metcalfe inferred; and his attempt in 1 843-1 845 
to stay the progress towards responsible govern- 
ment was as useless as it would have been for 
him to command the waters of Lake Erie to cease 
flowing over Niagara Falls. 

1 As late as October I, 1843, there was no realization at 
Whitehall of the changing conditions in the United Provinces, 
or of the claim for responsible government which was being 
insistently pressed on the governor-general. In that month 
the "Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty's Colonial Serv- 
ice" were revised and reissued; and on page 19 in the new 
edition there is a rule applicable to the distribution of patron- 
age. " Great weight," it reads, " must always be attached to 
local services and experience. Every governor will, therefore, 
make once in each year a confidential report of the claims of 
candidates, whether already employed in the public service 
or not, whom he may consider to possess that qualification, 
in order that when a vacancy, or an opportunity for promo- 
tion, occurs, the secretary of state may have before him the 
means of judging how far the particular candidate recom- 
mended by the governor is, on the whole, best qualified, and 
whether a candidate of proper qualifications is to be found in 
the colony or in any adjacent colony." 

2 Egerton and Grant, 295. 

[ 122 ] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

Racial divisions existed in the legislature of Doubie- 
the United Provinces from 1841 to 1866. But ^7^**^ 
party lines were not identical with race lines. double- 
All the members from Quebec were not Liberal, ^^^^^g 
nor all the members from Ontario Conservative. 
Combinations of groups from each province were 
necessary to secure a party majority in the as- 
sembly. It was by a combination of this kind 
that the Lafontaine-Baldwin administration was 
formed when Bagot was governor-general. 

Such an administration was known as a double- 
majority and double-headed cabinet, because a 
British and a French party leader — of equal 
rank in the cabinet, and each with his regimented 
following in the assembly — were necessary to 
keep the administration in power. 

Robert Baldwin, who with Lafontaine was at Baid- 
the head of the government when Metcalfe at- ^'^ 

° , . part in 

tempted to restore the old regime and enforce his the 
old crown colony ideal of colonial government, struggle 
was the leader of the Liberals in Ontario. He 
had been in the political life of the upper prov- 

govern- 

ince since 1829, when he was elected to the ment 
assembly. He had been a radical and a reformer 
at Toronto, when association with radicals and 
reformers meant a boycott for a professional 
man — he was a lawyer — and meant also social 
ostracism. 

With Baldwin from 1829 to 1849, responsible 
government was the alpha and omega of political 
reform. He was the author of the municipal code 

[ 123] 



respon- 
sible 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Outcome 
of Met- 
calfe's 
oppo- 
sition to 
respon- 
sible 
govern- 
ment 



Governor- 
general's 
power to 
dissolve 
the legis- 
lature 



Metcalfe 
as a Tory 
partisan 



of 1849, a democratic measure of much value in 
the domestic history of Ontario. But his fame 
today, Hke that of Lafontaine, rests chiefly on 
his part in the successful struggle for responsible 
government under the constitution of 1840. 

The Lafontaine-Baldwin government resigned 
in September, 1844. It was succeeded by the 
Draper-Viger government, which had as its fol- 
lowing members of the assembly from both Que- 
bec and Ontario, who were willing to accede to 
Metcalfe's views of responsible government. But 
these members were not numerous enough to give 
the Draper-Viger administration a majority in 
the assembly. Without a majority there could 
be no votes in supply — no money with which 
to carry on the government. 

Under the constitution a session of the legis- 
lature had to be held each year, and a legislature 
might continue in existence for four years. But, 
as under the British constitution, the governor- 
general had power, as he has today, to dissolve 
the legislature at a crisis which seemed to make 
expedient a new appeal to the electorate. 

Metcalfe, under the conditions which con- 
fronted him in the autumn of 1844 — with La- 
fontaine and Baldwin out of office, but with their 
followers still compact and hostile to the new 
government — was compelled to dissolve the legis- 
lature. He was compelled to take this step, or to 
yield to the demand for responsible government, 
as the radicals conceived it. 

C 124] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



The new ministers, Draper and Viger, were 
Conservatives — Tories, as Conservatives in Can- 
ada were called until 1855. Metcalfe had had no 
experience in the management of elections. Elec- 
tions were unknown in India. But he threw him- 
self into the election of 1844 with all the vigor 
that had characterized Head's intervention in the 
election in Upper Canada in 1836, and with such 
success that a majority was secured in the assem- 
bly for Draper and Viger. 

As Metcalfe was the last governor-general to 
assume what today would be regarded as a dis- 
tinctly unconstitutional position towards an ad- 
ministration, so also was he the last governor who 
was openly partisan. He was the last to inter- 
fere in a general election in the interest of either 
party. Within less than a year of his success at 
the election of 1844, Metcalfe died — the third 
governor-general to die in Canada in the years 
from 1 84 1 to 1845. 

For only about two years was the movement 
for responsible government retarded by Metcalfe's 
conflict with the Lafontaine-Baldwin ministry and 
his success in securing a majority in the assembly 
for Draper and Viger. But unlike Bagot, Met- 
calfe had friends at court. His administration 
and his policy were regarded by Queen Victoria, 
and by the prince consort, as "prudent, consist- 
ent, and impartial." 

"Upon the continuance and consistent appli- 
cation of the system which Lord Metcalfe has 

[ 125] 



Last 
gov- 
ernor- 
general 
to inter- 
fere In 
elections 



Queen 
Victoria's 
admira- 
tion of 
Met- 
calfe's 
policies 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Met- 
calfe's 
instruc- 
tions 



His policy 
defended 
by the 
colonial 
secretary 



laid down and acted upon," wrote Prince Albert, 
in August, 1846, "will depend, in the Queen's 
estimation, the future welfare of the province, 
and the maintenance of proper relations with 
the mother country." ^ 

Metcalfe's policy certainly was in accordance 
with the instructions he had received when he 
was appointed governor-general — instructions 
which Stanley, who was then colonial secretary 
in Peel's administration of 1 841-1846, on Feb- 
ruary 2, 1844, declined to lay on the table of the 
house of commons. 

There was a debate on that day on Metcalfe's 
administration. Stanley expressed satisfaction 
that the question had been raised; for he be- 
lieved it of importance that there should be no 
mistake as to the views of the government. 
" Metcalfe," reads the report of Stanley's speech, 
"was sent to Canada to carry out the fairly new 
colonial system, but equally determined to resist 
those extravagant demands which were incon- 
sistent with the authority of the crown, and of 
the true rights of a colony. He believed that 
the course taken by the governor-general was 
the right one, and he had no hesitation in stating 
that it met with the entire concurrence of the 
government at home."^ 

Metcalfe's death was regarded by the Queen 
as a great loss. Her correspondence with minis- 

^ Benson and Esher, II, 111-112. 

2 Pari. Debates, Series III, vol. 72, p. 145. 

C126] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



ters at this time shows that she fully endorsed 
their policy of conceding to the United Provinces 
something far short of what Baldwin and Lafon- 
taine understood by the term — a term of Cana- 
dian origin — "responsible government." "The 
selection of a successor," the Queen wrote, "will 
be most difficult;" and she urged on Stanley, 
that it was of "the greatest importance that the 
judicious system pursued by Lord Metcalfe, which, 
after a long continuation of toil and adversity, 
only now ^ just begins to show its effect, should 
be followed up by his successor." ^ 

Queen Victoria, in this letter of November 2, 
1845, added that she knew "nobody who would 
be as fit for the appointment as Lord Elgin, who 
seems to have given great satisfaction in Jamaica," 
where he had succeeded Metcalfe as governor in 
1842. 

VL Responsible Government under 
the Elgin Regime 

During the whole of her sixty-four years' reign 
the Queen can scarcely have done what are now 
the dominions a more valuable service than when 
she suggested the appointment of Elgin to Stan- 
ley. The appointment was ultimately made, 
not by the Peel government to which the Queen 
had addressed her letter, but by the government 
of Lord John Russell, which had succeeded the 
Peel administration in July, 1846. 

^ November 2, 1845. 

^ Benson and Esher, II, 54-55; 111-112. 

[ 127] 



Some- 
thing 
short of 
respon- 
sible 
govern- 
ment 
to be 
conceded 



Queen 

suggests 
Elgin as 
Met- 
calfe's 



A 

fortimate 
sugges- 
tion 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Elgin's Elgin, who was thirty-five when he was 

'*°^ appointed governor-general, did not continue 

makers Metcalfe's policy, although when the Russell gov- 

ofthe ernment was about to make the appointment — 

British 1 ^ 1 T- 1 /-I 

Empire August 3, 1 846 — the Queen urged on Earl Grey, 
the new colonial secretary, that "regard should 
be had to securing an uninterrupted development 
of Lord Metcalfe's views." ^ 

Today Elgin ranks with Durham and Syden- 
ham among the great colonial administrators of 
the nineteenth century. Had he followed in Met- 
calfe's footsteps — made speeches like that of 
Metcalfe to the advocates of responsible govern- 
ment, and interfered in elections — his name would 
have been of interest only to colonial antiquaries. 
Elgin's Durham and Sydenham were Whigs — ap- 

f°fhT* pointees of a Whig government. Bagot and 
1841 Metcalfe were Conservatives, appointees of a Con- 
servative government. Elgin was a Conserva- 
tive. Had he not been a Conservative he would 
not have been suggested by the Queen to a Con- 
servative government in 1846; for governorships 
in the dominions, as distinct from governorships 
of crown colonies, are regarded as patronage at 
Westminster, except when occasionally a prince 
or other connection of the royal family is ap- 
pointed.2 Otherwise governorships go, as a 

^ Benson and Esher, II, 112. 

^ The Marquis of Lome, who was governor-general of 
Canada from 1878 to 1883, was husband of Princess Louise, 
daughter of Queen Victoria. 

[128] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



matter of course, to supporters of the adminis- 
tration at Westminster. 

At this period of his career Elgin was a Liberal- 
Conservative.^ But the liberaUsm was pre- 
ponderant. He was not a Tory of the type of 
Wellington. He was not even a Tory of the 
school of Stanley, afterwards Earl of Derby, from 
whom in 1842 he had received his appointment as 
governor of Jamaica. He had avowed his lib- 
eralism when he was a candidate for the house 
of commons for Southampton, in 1841; ^ and he 
carried his Hberalism into practice during the 
six years he was governor-general of Canada. 

Before Elgin left England for Canada in 1847, 
he married a daughter of Durham. This would 
seem to have broadened his liberalism and 
strengthened his popular sympathies.^ It un- 
doubtedly gave the Durham family added 
importance in the history of the struggle for 
responsible government, a struggle which had 
been carried to a successful issue when Elgin 
left Canada in December, 1854. 

At the time that Elgin was governor-general 
of Canada, and for at least a quarter of a century 
afterwards, the attitude of many statesmen in 
England — Conservatives as well as Liberals — 
was that colonies such as Canada, Australia, and 
New Zealand would end the connection with 
Great Britain as soon as they were strong enough 

^ Cf. Walrond, ibid., 9. ^ Cf. Walrond, ibid., 9-10. 

* Cf. Walrond, ibid., 44. 

[ 129] 



Elgin's 

marriage 

with the 

daughter 

of 

Durham 



Helping 
the 

colonies 
to 

prepare 
for 
inde- 
pendence 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



New- 
castle's 
views on 
holding 
colonies 
by force 



American 
influence 
once more 



to Stand alone. Many English statesmen were 
convinced that the constitutions framed by par- 
liament after 1840 for colonies with representa- 
tive government were only provisional — only 
preliminary to constitutions in which these 
colonies would assert their complete independence. 

Proof of the existence of this conviction is 
abundant in the biographies and letters of British 
statesmen of the first half of the nineteenth cen- 
tury. Expressions of it are to be found in the de- 
bates of the house of lords on June 15 and 29, 
1854, on the legislative council (Canada) bill; and 
as late in the nineteenth century as 1862 the 
colonies were told by the Duke of Newcastle, 
who was secretary of state for the colonies in the 
Palmerston administration of 1 859-1 865, that 
he trusted the day would never come when the 
mother country would make an effort to retain 
her colonies by force. 

"I trust," added Newcastle, "that the day 
will never return when a single redcoat will point 
a bayonet, or fire a shot, in hostility to the colo- 
nies if they wish to separate from the mother 
country." ^ Here again America had its influence 
on British colonial policy; for the conviction 
that the colonies would break away was largely 
based on Great Britain's experience of 1 776-1 783 
with the American colonies. 

These convictions were all ill-founded. This 

^ Speech by Duke of Newcastle, Australian anniversary 
dinner, London, February 12, 1862. 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



fact was demonstrated to the world several times 
in the years from Queen Victoria's jubilee in 
1887 to the outbreak of the war in August, 1914. 
As one concession after another was made to 
the dominions, in the years from 1840 to 1907, 
when they were conceded the liberty to make 
their own commercial treaties with foreign powers, 
and as the dominions increased in population, 
material wealth, and world-wide political impor- 
tance, they drew nearer to Great Britain. They 
attached increasing importance to the imperial 
connection; and when war came a million troops 
were raised in the dominions, and the response 
which the dominions made to the Empire's need 
was in some respects more remarkable than 
England's own.^ 

From 1840 to 1880, however, the conviction was 
widely held that the colonies with representative 
and responsible government would inevitably 
break away as soon as it suited them to do so. 

Elgin never held this view of the temporary 
character of the connection between the domin- 
ions and Great Britain. He did not go to Canada 
with the idea that he was to aid in perfecting a 
system of government that was to be only pro- 
visional, or with the conviction that the British 
North American colonies would follow the ex- 
ample of the American colonies, and end the con- 
nection with Great Britain. 

^ Cf. Adams, "Imperial Federation after the War," Yale 
Review, July, 1916, 688-694. 

C131] 



Con- 
victions 
for which 
there 
was no 
basis 



Elgin 
con- 
vinced 
of the 
enduring 
con- 
nection 
of the 
colonies 
with 
Great 
Britain 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



His con- 
ception of 
his 

mission 
In Canada 



His frank 
adoption 
of the 
policy of 
Sydenham 



Family 
Compact 
and 
Elgin's 
declara- 
tion of his 
principles 



As Elgin conceived it, his mission was to con- 
vince Canadians that, without severing the bonds 
that united them with Great Britain, "they might 
attain the degree of perfection and of social and 
political development to which organized com- 
munities of freemen had the right to aspire." ^ 

The principles on which Elgin based his policy 
as governor were identical with those that had 
guided Sydenham in 1841. He would identify 
himself with no party, but would make himself 
a moderator between the influential of all parties. 
He would have no ministers who did not enjoy 
the confidence of the Canadian people; and he 
would not refuse his consent to any measure, 
proposed by the ministry, unless it were of an 
extreme party character, such as the assembly 
or the electors would be sure to disapprove.^ 

Elgin arrived at Montreal at the end of De- 
cember, 1847. On the day that he took oath as 
governor-general, he received an address of wel- 
come from the municipality of Montreal. In 
reply he intimated that he had frankly and un- 
equivocally adopted Durham's view of colonial 
governorship — an intimation that caused no 
little astonishment to the Family Compact and 
its partisans, who had scarcely more sympathy 
with Durham's principles of colonial government 
than they had with republicanism in the United 
States.^ 

^ Walrond, ibid., 116. '^ Walrond, ibid., 34. 

3 Cf. Walrond, ibid., 36. . 

[ 132 ] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

The Draper-VIger government was at this time 
still in office. The leaders and their partisans 
were in good humor, as they were in enjoyment 
of the offices to which as Tories of the Family 
Compact group they were convinced they had a 
prescriptive right. The Liberals were in a hope- 
ful mood, as they were convinced — rightly, as 
it developed — that with the end of the Met- 
calfe regime a better era would open for the advo- 
cates of responsible government. 

A dissolution of the legislature came at the Defeat 
end of 1847. As soon as the newly elected assem- ^^^ 
bly convened, early in 1848, the Draper-Viger govem- 
ministry was again in the position in which it ™®'^* 
was when it was first organized. It was in a 
minority, and unable to carry on the government. 

A new ministry — again a Lafontaine-Baldwin 
administration — was formed from the opposi- 
tion; and at this juncture the members of the 
two parties observed a truce long enough to con- 
cur in an expression of admiration of the perfect 
fairness and impartiality with which Elgin had 
conducted himself during the election and the 
formation of the new ministry.^ 

Within a year of his assuming the governor- Elgin's 
generalship, Elgin thus succeeded in carrying ^"* 
into effect the second of the principles on which 
his administration was to be based — that he 
would have no ministers, no members of the 
executive council, who could not command a 

^Cf. Walrond, ibid., 50. 

[ 133] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

majority in the legislative assembly. He had 
still to make a fight, in the end successful, for 
his third principle, that he would not refuse his 
consent to any measure proposed by the cabinet, 
unless it were of an extreme party character, 
such as the assembly or the electors would dis- 
approve. 

VII. The Rebellion Losses Bill 

A The test came on the measure known in Cana- 

j^ dian history as the rebellion losses bill — a bill 

Canadian almost as important in the constitutional history 
tationai ^^ Canada as the act of union of 1840, and quite 
develop- as important as the tariff acts of 1858-1859, 
°^^°^ out of which developed the right of British 
colonies, with representative and responsible 
governments, to frame their own tariffs without 
interference from the colonial office or parlia- 
ment at Westminster. 

The object of the rebellion losses bill was to 
provide for the indemnification of men in Lower 
Canada whose property had been destroyed dur- 
ing the rebelHon. Elgin regarded the bill as a 
questionable measure; "but," to use his own 
words, "one which the preceding administration 
had rendered almost inevitable by certain pro- 
ceedings adopted by them" during Metcalfe's 
term of office. 

Some compensation had been paid to persons 
who had suffered loss of property in the rebel- 
lion. In the last session of the old legislature 

C 134 ] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



of Upper Canada a compensation bill was enacted; 
and by an ordinance, passed by the council that 
was in existence in Lower Canada during the sus- 
pension of the constitution from 1838 to the 
union in 1840, some compensation was also paid 
in Lower Canada. 

In both provinces the payments made were 
deemed inadequate; and in the first session of 
the legislature of the United Provinces — 1841 — 
a bill was enacted for further compensation for 
sufferers in Upper Canada. In 1845 there was 
an appeal on behalf of sufferers in Lower Canada. 
It was addressed to Metcalfe, who responded by 
appointing a commission of inquiry. The com- 
mission reported in April, 1846, that there were 
losses for which compensation should be paid. 

The Draper-Viger government took no action 
on the report. The question of compensation was 
consequently pending when the Lafontaine-Bald- 
win government again came into power in 1848. 

The Metcalfe commission had reported that 
.$100,000 would cover the losses still to be com- 
pensated in Lower Canada. The bill that was 
introduced into the legislature in 1848 by the 
Lafontaine-Baldwin government appropriated 
$90,000 for this purpose. There was a provision 
in the bill that no person who had been con- 
victed, or who had pleaded guilty of treason, 
during the rebellion, should be entitled to any 
compensation.^ 

1 Cf. Walrond, ibid., 70-74. 

[135] 



Com- 
pensation 
to 

sufferers 
from the 
rebellion 
in Upper 
Canada 

Claims 
from 
Lower 
Canada 



An 

misettled 

question 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Oppo- 
sition by 
the Tories 



Elgin's 
assent to 
the 

compen- 
sation bill 
resolu- 
tions 



His 

reasons 
for his 
assent 
communi- 
cated 
to the 
colonial 
ofiSce 



The Tories in both provinces raised a great 
commotion against the bill. There was much 
hard language from the loyalists against Elgin, 
who was urged to dissolve the legislature, though 
little more than a year had elapsed since the 
general election. The bill, however, was per- 
sisted in by the Lafontaine-Baldwin administra- 
tion. 

In all British legislatures money bills originate 
in the lower house. They are based on resolu- 
tions. If the resolutions are carried they are 
embodied in a bill which is introduced, and goes 
through all its stages in both houses like any other 
measure. 

The resolutions on which the rebellion losses 
bill was based — resolutions which, by con- 
stitutional usage, could not have been submitted 
to the legislative assembly had the governor- 
general not signified his assent to them by message 
to the house — were carried by fifty to twenty- 
five votes. The bill was carried by forty-seven 
to eighteen votes. 

The reasons which induced Elgin to give his 
assent to the resolutions were explained in a 
letter which he wrote from Montreal to Grey, 
who was secretary for the colonies in the Russell 
administration of 1846-185 2. "The measure 
itself," he wrote, "is not indeed altogether free 
from objection; and I very much regret that an 
addition should be made to our debt for such an 
object at this time. Nevertheless, I must say, 

[136] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

I do not see how my present government could 
have taken any other course in this matter than 
that which they have followed. Their prede- 
cessors had already gone more than halfway in 
the same direction, though they stopped short 
and now tell us that they never intended to go 
further. If the ministry had failed to complete 
the work of alleged justice to Lower Canada 
which had been commenced by the former 
administration, M. Papineau ^ would most as- 
suredly have availed himself of the plea to under- 
mine their influence in this section of the 
province." ^ 

A disposition to observe constitutional usages old 
and practices was never characteristic of the ^'^""dian 
Tories of the Family Compact groups in Upper Tories' 
and Lower Canada. They were a law to them- ^^T" 
selves, as was sufficiently proved by their ejection for 
of Mackenzie from the assembly at Toronto. ^^^\ 
They again ignored constitutional usage in the usages 
crisis over the rebellion losses bill. They or- 
ganized many petitions against the bill; but 

^ "Returning from exile in 1845, after eight years' absence 
from Canada, Papineau decided to reenter public life; and 
the prestige of his name, and of his past parliamentary tri- 
umphs, were sufiicient to secure his election for the constit- 
uency of St. Maurice. Papineau at once showed himself 
irreconcilable. He was against the union. He had no faith 
in responsible government, such as was advocated by La- 
fontaine and his colleagues, and he declared in favor of inde- 
pendence." ^ Boyd, 76. 

^ Walrond, ibid., 74-75. 

[137] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

instead of presenting these petitions to the 
assembly, or to the legislative council, in accord- 
ance with the usage at Westminster, they 
addressed them to Elgin personally. This un- 
constitutional course was obviously adopted with 
the design of bringing about a collision between 
the governor-general and his ministry and the 
assembly. 

At Westminster, where petitions to the sover- 
eign can only be presented through the home sec- 
retary, petitions thus out of order would have not 
opposition j-eached the Queen. Elgin, acting consistently 
compen- on the first of the principles on which he based 
^^°^ his administration, that he would make himself 
a mediator and a moderator between the two 
political parties, received the petitions against 
the rebellion losses bill. He received them 
civilly, and promised to bestow on them his best 
consideration, but studiously avoided the expres- 
sion of any opinion. 

"By maintaining a strictly constitutional posi- 
tion," writes his biographer, "he failed that 
section of the agitators who calculated on his 
being frightened or made angry, while he left the 
door open for any one who might have candor 
enough to admit that, after all, he was only 
carrying out fairly the principle of responsible 
government." ^ 

From the assembly the rebellion losses bill 
went to the legislative council; and here it 

^ Walrond, ibid., 77. 
C138] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

should be noted that Elgin in appointing members Elgin's 
to the council had acted on the advice of his ^'>"**^- 

tions 

ministers. By so doing, he had accepted another to the 
demand of the protagonists of responsible govern- J^^^" 
ment, and established the usage which has councu 
continued at Ottawa and at Quebec and Halifax 
to the present day. It is in accordance with 
this usage that appointments to the senate, and 
to the legislative councils in the provinces where 
these exist, are made by the governor-general, 
or the lieutenant-governors, as representatives of 
the crown, but invariably on the advice of the 
cabinet at Ottawa or the provincial executives at 
Quebec and Halifax. 

The bill, having passed the assembly and the Compen- 
council, was ready for the royal assent on April f*.^*"^ 
25, 1849. It received the royal assent from receives 
Elgin on that day. As Elgin left the parhament ^® 
house in Montreal he was received with mingled assent 
cheers and hooting, and his carriage was pelted 
with rotten eggs, thrown by a "small knot of 
individuals consisting of persons of a respectable 
class in society." 

An open-air demonstration in the Champs de LoyaUst 
Mars followed the outbreak at the parliament 
building. Inflammatory speeches were made; 
and on a sudden the mob proceeded to the house 
of parliament, where the members were still 
sitting. After breaking the windows, the mob 
set fire to the building, and burned it to the 
ground. The crowd then dispersing, members 

[ 139] 



demon- 
strations 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



An 

address 
from the 
legislative 
assembly 



More 
loyalist 
demon- 
strations 



of the legislature were permitted to leave without 
molestation; and no resistance was offered by 
the riotous loyalists to the soldiers who came 
on the scene to assist in extinguishing the fire.^ 

At the next sitting of the assembly an address 
was voted to the governor-general. It expressed 
abhorrence of the outrage of April 25, and ap- 
proval of Elgin's "just and impartial administra- 
tion of the government." It also commended 
his attitude towards the Draper-Viger ministry 
as well as towards the Lafontaine-Baldwin 
cabinet. 

Elgin went into the city on April 30 to receive 
this address. He was escorted by a troop of 
volunteer dragoons. On his way through the 
streets he was greeted with a shower of stones. 
Returning from the parliament house to Monk- 
lands, his residence on Mount Royal, Elgin 
varied his route to avoid further hostile demon- 
strations. But the mob, discovering his purpose, 
rushed in pursuit. They again assailed his 
carriage with stones, rotten eggs, and other 
missiles; and it was only by furious driving that 
the governor-general reached Monklands unhurt. 

For several days Monklands was prepared for 
a siege; and for two or three weeks Elgin did 
not leave the grounds, as he was determined that 
no act of his should offer occasion or excuse to 
the mob — an exclusively British as distinct from 
a French-Canadian mob — for further outrages. 

^ Cf. Walrond, 81-82; Burpee, "Sandford Fleming," 34. 

[ 140] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

Members of the Lafontaine-Baldwin ministry Elgin's 
feared that if Elgin went again into Montreal, ^^^^^^^ 
his life would be in danger.^ As the legislature as m 
was still sitting, ministers urged the appointment *^*^®' 
of a deputy-governor for the purpose of pro- 
roguing the legislature, thus avoiding another 
journey for Elgin to the parliament house. Less 
responsible advisers urged Elgin to use the 
military forces at his command to protect his 
person in an official visit to Montreal. 

While Elgin was thus a prisoner at Monklands, Develop- 
there were two developments of importance — ™^^ 
Elgin tendered his resignation to Grey, and ad- the crisis 
dresses were forwarded to the governor-general 
from various parts of Upper and Lower Canada 
indorsing the fight he was making for responsible 
government. 

One of these addresses was from a settlement Elgin 
of Scotch Highlanders in the county of Glen- ^^^^ 
garry, Upper Canada. "It is truly gratifying to cause 
me," wrote Elgin to his fellow countrymen in *°' 
Glengarry, "to learn that you appreciate my he was 
exertions. Depend upon it they will not be ®^^' 
relaxed. I claim to have something of your own 
spirit, devotion to a cause which I believe to be 
a just one, courage to confront, if need be, danger 

^ "Great as has been Elgin's success," said the Earl of 
Derby, in the house of lords, on June 29, 1854, "I cannot 
help saying and feeling that the leading principle on which 
Lord Elgin has acted has been concessions one after another 
to popular demands — concessions which would enable him 
to lead an easy life." 

[ 141 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Consti- 
tutional 
govern- 
ment on 
its trial 



Elgin 
offers his 
resig- 
nation 
to the 
colonial 
office 



and even obloquy in its pursuit, and an undying 
faith that God protects the right." ^ 

Elgin's resignation was offered to Grey on 
April 25, the day that the loyalists burned the 
parliament house. "It is my firm conviction," 
he wrote to the colonial secretary, "that if this 
dictation be submitted to, the government of 
this province by constitutional means will be 
impossible, and that the struggle between over- 
bearing minorities, backed by force, and ma- 
jorities resting on legality and established forms, 
which has so long proved the bane of Canada, 
driving capital from the province, and producing 
a state of chronic discontent, will be perpetuated." 

These were the views that Elgin unfolded to 
Grey. But while holding these views as to the 
real nature of the struggle then going on in 
Montreal, he conceived it his duty to the govern- 
ment at Westminster to suggest that "if he 
should be unable to recover that position of 
dignified neutrality between the contending 
parties which it had been his unremitting study to 
maintain," it might be a question "whether it 
would not be for the interests of her majesty's 
service that he should be removed to make way 
for some one who should have the advantage of 
being personally unobnoxious to any section of 
her majesty's subjects within the province." ^ 

Grey would not hear of Elgin's resignation. 
Were he to resign it would be a most serious loss 

1 Walrond, ibid., 87-88. 2 Walrond, ibid., 86. 

[ 142] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

to her majesty's service and to the province. Queen 
Moreover, with conditions as they were in Mont- ^^^^^^ 

"^ anxious 

real, it would be "most injurious to the pubhc that 
welfare, from the encouragement which it would ^^^ 
give to those who had been concerned in the vio- ws 
lent and illegal opposition" to Elgin's government. °®'^® 
Relying on Elgin's devotion to the interests of 
Canada, Grey was sure he would not be induced 
to retire from the high office the Queen had been 
pleased to intrust to him, "and which," he added, 
"from the value she puts on your past services, 
it is her majesty's anxious wish that you should 
retain." ^ 

VIII. Responsible Government Accepted and 
Indorsed by Parliament at Westminster 

The loyalists then appealed to England. Appeals 
Petitions were sent from Montreal to Westminster J*^ ^® 

loyalists 

for the disallowance of the rebellion losses bill, to 
Gladstone, who, it will be recalled, was not of p"^" 

' ' _ ' . ment 

the Liberal party until 1859, denounced the bill at 

in the house of commons ^ as a measure for the ,®®*" 

minster 

rewarding of rebels; and Herries, who had been 
a member of the Wellington and Peel adminis- 
tration, moved for an address to the Queen for 
its disallowance. There was a debate on this 
motion extending over two nights. In the 
course of it Elgin's policy was defended by Peel, 
almost as strongly as by Russell. 

Russell stoutly contended that under the 
1 Walrond, ibid., 86-87. ^ June 14, 1849. 

[ 143] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Russell's 
eulogy of 
respon- 
sible 
govern- 
ment 



End of a 
twenty 
years' 
struggle 



Anew 

principle 

adopted 

at the 

colonial 

office 



constitution of 1840 the majority in the United 
Provinces must rule. The premier's speech was 
remarkable, in view of his dread in 1837, and 
again in 1840, of responsible government in 
Canada. "Not only," he said, "has Canada 
self-government, but responsible government, 
which has never been enjoyed to such an extent 
as it has been since the time of the Earl of Elgin. 
If the present ministry in Canada are sustained 
by popular opinion and by the assembly, they 
will remain in office. If, on the contrary, the 
opinion of the province is adverse to them, the 
governor-general will take other advisers, and 
will act strictly in accordance with the rule that 
has been adopted here." 

There was a majority of 141 against the motion 
to disallow. In the house of lords a majority 
also supported the position that Russell had 
taken in the house of commons; and by these 
two epoch-making divisions at Westminster in 
June, 1849, a struggle that had been going on in 
Canada since 1828 was brought to a triumphant 
conclusion. Thereafter there was no more discus- 
sion of Canadian grievances in parliament at 
Westminster. There were no more petitions 
from Conservatives in Canada who objected to 
responsible government. 

Thenceforward a new principle governed the 
colonial office in its relations with colonies with 
representative and responsible government. This 
principle was that the imperial government had 

C 144] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

no Interest whatever in exercising any greater 
influence in the internal afFairs of the colonies 
than was indispensable, either for the purpose of 
preventing any one colony from adopting measures 
injurious to another, or to the empire at large.^ 

In the following year, 1850, when bills estab- a free 
lishing responsible government in New South ^^^ 
Wales, Van Diemen's Land, New Zealand, and legis- 
Cape Colony were before parliament, Russell ^^^^ 
made a statement of the attitude of the imperial govem- 
government towards the colonies that are now of °^^^^ 
the dominions. "I am convinced," he said in 
the house of commons, "that any man acquainted 
with the colonies will come to the conclusion that 
it is only in rare cases that the authority of the 
crown ought to be interposed, and that with 
regard to local affairs the executive and legis- 
lative authorities of the colonies are the best 
judges." 

Thus within a year of the attacks of the Tory Respon- 
mob on Elgin, and the burning of the parliament ^'^^^ 
house at Montreal, the success which had been ment 
achieved by Papineau and Mackenzie, by La- «^ended 
fontaine and Baldwin, and by Durham, Syden- British 
ham, Bagot, and Elgin, was beneficently affecting 
British colonies on three continents. Abiding conti 
foundations were also being laid for the develop- ^^^^ 
ment of the good relations between Great Britain 
and the dominions that were manifested to the 
world when Germany declared war in 1914. 
^ Egerton and Grant, 297. 

[ 145] 



colonies 
on three 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



and the 
empire 



Elgin's Elgin, who, later in his career, was British 

services envov to China, and viceroy of India, was 

to Canada ■^ 

governor-general of Canada from 1847 to 1854. 
In these seven years — years of political turmoil, 
and also of commercial dislocation and depression 
due to the sweeping fiscal reforms of 1 846-1 847 
in the United Kingdom — he did more than any 
governor-general before or after him to create a 
political civilization for Canada. 

He did much also to establish better relations 
between the British North American provinces i 
and the United States; for he was primarily 
responsible for the much-valued treaty of reci- 
procity with the United States that was in force ^ 
— to the moral and material advantage of both 
countries — from 1854 to 1866. Elgin's fame as 
a statesman of the empire, like that of Durham 
and Sydenham, is enduring. It will survive as 
long as the history of Great Britain's oversea 
dominions is read. Every privy council chamber 
in the political capitals of Canada, Australia, New 
Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland is a 
monument to Elgin's achievements of 1 847-1 854. 



IX. The Development of the Political Civiliza- 
tion of Upper and Lower Canada 

Aback- The extreme poverty of the political civiliza- 

woods ^Jqjj Qf Upper and Lower Canada had been 

political 

civilization revealed to the world by Durham. It was a 
backwoods or frontier political civilization. Even 
as such it was inadequate. 
C146] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

In Upper Canada the men who were active in An era 
political life — unless they were of the Family f^^^^ 
Compact group, and satisfied with conditions as 
they were — realized this poverty quite as much 
as Durham had done when he was in Canada in 
1838; and as soon as the question of responsible 
government was satisfactorily settled in 1849, 
there began an era of political development 
which extended from 1851 to 1866, an era which 
is without parallel in the nineteenth-century 
history of any English-speaking country. 

Even before the disturbing questions of Munici- 
responsible government and the relation of the ^^^^_ 
state to religion were settled, the upbuilding ment 
of a political civilization had been well begun, ^^j^tion 
County and municipal government had been 
estabhshed on a democratic basis. Systems of 
public education — one for Upper Canada, and 
another for the French province — had been 
organized. The criminal code had been human- 
ized. Postal services had been greatly extended. 

The adoption of free trade in England in 1846, Railways 
and the abandonment of the old British colonial ^^e^ce 
policy, had enabled the United Provinces to navi- 
enact their own customs laws; although these *^*'°° 
laws were not for the protection of home in- 
dustries until 1858. Liberal naturalization laws 
had been enacted. Government aid had been 
given to railway undertakings; and large sums of 
money had been expended on road construction, 
on the Welland and St. Lawrence canals, and 

C 147] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Clear 

Grits 

and 

Rouges 



Program 
of the 
reformers 



Old laws 
to be 
repealed 



on the ship channel in the St. Lawrence that 
gives access to Montreal from the sea. 

All this work was going on before responsible 
government was finally achieved in 1849. With 
this achievement began the era of constitutional 
reform that continued until Confederation. The 
reformers were Liberals — Rouges as they were 
called in Lower Canada, Clear Grits in Upper 
Canada.^ 

In Upper Canada, where political thought was 
most active and potent, the program of the 
reformers in 1851 was in two divisions. In the 
first were reforms which it was in the power 
of the legislature, under the constitution of 1840, 
to make. In the second were constitutional 
reforms, which, in some important respects, 
could only be made by the legislature after 
liberalizing amendments had been made to the 
constitution by parliament at Westminster. 

The more important demands in the first ; 
division of the program of 1851 were: 

I. Simplification of procedure in the 
courts. 



law 



^ "In Canada parties have been known by different names. 
We have had Liberals and Conservatives, Rouges and Blues, 
Grits and Tories, and for a short period under Robert Baldwin, 
Reformers. It was in 185 1 that Brown fastened on that sec- 
tion of the Reform party which, under Malcolm Cameron, 
withdrew its confidence from the Baldwin-Lafontaine ministry, 
the term 'Clear Grits'; and from that day to this the name 
Grits has been used colloquially to designate the Liberal 
party." — Gazette, Montreal, October 15, 1917. 

[ 148 ] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

2. Repeal of all laws conferring special privi- 
leges on churches. 

3. Reform in the method of sale of crown 
lands. 

4. Free navigation of the St. Lawrence for all 
nations. 

5. Abolition of primogeniture, which had 
become the law in Upper Canada, when, by act 
of its legislature in 1792, Enghsh law had been 
declared the law of the province. 

6. * Abolition of customs houses and duties on 
imports. 

7. EstabHshment of a uniform decimal currency. 

In the second part of the program, as it stood Amend- 
in 1 85 1, the demands were: ^^^^ 

1. * Election of the governor. consu- 

2. An elected legislative council. SImo 

3. Election by county and municipal councils 
of all county and municipal officers. 

4. Abolition of the property qualification for 
members of the assembly, created by the imperial 
act of 1840. 

5. An extension of the electoral franchise — 
an extension that would bring in all householders. 

6. Vote by ballot. 

7. * Biennial legislatures with a fixed term, 
instead of legislatures of uncertain duration. 

8. No expenditure of public money without 
the control of the legislature. 

9. Representation according to population — 
a demand which developed out of the obvious 

[ 149] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Revival 
of some 
of the 
popular 
demands 
of 182S- 
1837 



Attitude 
of the 
Conserv- 
ative party 



over-representation of Lower Canada in the 
legislature of the United Provinces. 

10. Abolition of pensions to government 
officials. 

11. Canadian commerce and commercial inter- 
course with other nations to be entirely under 
the control of the legislature.^ 

12. *The legislature to have power to alter or 
repeal any act or charter, imperial or otherwise, 
affecting only Canada, which the imperial parlia- 
ment itself might alter or repeal.^ 

These were the demands of the Liberals of 
Upper Canada in 185 1. In the second part of 
the program there was a revival of the demand 
of the reformers of 1828-1837 for an elected 
instead of a nominated legislative council; and 
in 1852 another of these earlier demands was 
revived — the demand for the exclusion of 
judges and office holders from the legislature. 

The Conservatives naturally were not re- 
formers. They opposed most of the demands in 
the program of 185 1. It was, however, mainly 
with the Conservatives of Toronto, Montreal, 
and Hamilton — with the manufacturers of 

^ This was the beginning of the movement for the right of 
Canada to make her own commercial treaties — the movement 
that achieved complete success when plenipotentiaries named 
by the Laurier government of 1896-1911 negotiated the 
reciprocity treaty with France of 1907. 

2 Cf. Clarke, 65. The demands marked with an asterisk 
have not been realized and have not been pressed since 
Confederation. 

[ 150] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



these cities — that there originated in 1856- 
1857 a movement for a protective tariff for the 
United Provinces, a tariff that should protect 
Canadian manufacturers against both British 
and American competition. This movement was 
almost immediately successful. 

At least ten of the reforms were realized in the 
era of great political activity from 1851 to 1866. 
Others, such as vote by ballot, the abolition of 
tolls on the Welland and the St. Lawrence canals, 
representation according to population, and the 
right of Canada to make her own commercial 
treaties, were not realized until after Confedera- 
tion in 1867. 

Only those demands which entailed amend- 
ments to the imperial act of 1840 are of paramount 
interest; and this interest is chiefly in the con- 
ciliatory spirit in which governments at Whitehall, 
and parliament at Westminster, met the demands 
from Canada for democratic amendments to the 
constitution of 1840, and for amendments to other 
legislation of the imperial parliament affecting 
Canada, that hindered reforms which the legis- 
lature was prepared to undertake. 

There were four of these amendments in the 
sixteen years that the constitution of 1840 was in 
force. They were all made in the years from 
1847 to 1854. Two of the most important — 
one giving the legislature a free hand in making 
a final settlement of the clergy reserves question, 
and the other bestowing large powers on it for 

[151: 



Reforms 
that were 
effected 
before 
Confed- 
eration 



Conces- 
sions 
made at 
West- 
minster 



Amend- 
ments to 
the 

act of the 
imperial 
parlia- 
ment 
of 1840 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

reforming its own constitution — were made 

while Elgin was governor-general. 
Increased These two amendments were made by the 
^"^^^ imperial parliament at Elgin's request, or at any 
to the rate they were made at the request of the cabinet 
provincial ^f ^j^g United Provinces, with the cordial approval 

legislature r ■ rt ^ r • 

of Elgin. By these four amendments parliament 
at Westminster parted with control it had exer- 
cised over Canada, and by so doing increased 
appreciably the power of the legislature of the 
United Provinces, 
civil Ust The first amendment, enacted at Westminster 
^^^f in 1847, removed the restrictions in the constitu- 

consoU- . 

dated tiou of 1840 on the civil list and the consolidated 
*™*^ fund. These restrictions had been imposed on 

account of the serious difficulties that arose in 
1 83 3-1 83 7, when the legislative assembly of 
Lower Canada refused to pass money bills. 
The new legislature of the United Provinces 
chafed under these restrictions; and apparently 
without a word of opposition in parhament at 
Westminster, they were all removed, and thence- 
forward the legislature was as free as the im- 
perial parliament in the appropriation of pubHc 
money. 
Use of the A Valuable concession was made to Lower 
Canada by the second amendment, made in 1848. 
French-Canadians were aggrieved by the pro- 
vision in the constitution that all legislative and 
state documents, which were to be of record, must 
be in English. Copies of these documents might 
II152] 



French 
lanjguage 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

be printed in French, but these copies were not 
to be of official record. 

By the amendment of 1848, without opposition 
in either the house of commons or the house of 
lords, a greater use of the French language was 
conceded. The amendment, in fact, gave to 
the legislature — in practice to each house — 
power to make such regulations as to the use of 
French as might seem desirable. It was an 
amendment that was in train before Elgin became 
governor-general. Apparently Metcalfe had 
urged it; and Gladstone, during his short tenure 
of the office of colonial secretary in Peel's second 
administration, had promised that parliament 
should be asked to enact it. 

Elgin welcomed the new freedom in the use Papi- 
of French; for in 1 847-1 848 Papineau was agi- °®*"'^ 
tating in Lower Canada against the restrictions agitation 
of 1840 on the use of the French language; and 
Elgin was, moreover, convinced of the impolicy 
of all attempts to denationalize the French- 
Canadians. 

"Generally speaking," wrote Elgin to Grey, Elgin's 
"all such attempts produce the opposite effect *^^^g 
from that intended, causing the flame of national French 
prejudice and animosity to burn more fiercely. ^*°**^ 
But suppose them to be successful, what would 
be the result? You may perhaps Americanize, 
but depend upon it by methods of this description 
you will never Anglicize the French inhabitants 
of the province. Let them feel, on the other 

[153] 



ENOLITION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



French 
Canada 
and the 
United 
States 



Speech 
from the 
throne in 
English 
and in 
French 



hand, that their rehgion. their habits, their 
prepossessions, their prejudices if you will, are 
more considered and respected here than in other 
portions of this vast continent, who will venture 
to say that the last hand that waves the British 
flag on American ground maj- not be that of a 
French-Canadian?" ^ 

Here again "our only neighbor," to use Cart- 
wright's phrase, influenced British policy towards 
Canada. Ob\'iously it was Elgin's purpose that 
conditions for French-Canadians should be such 
that they would realize the advantage of British 
supremacy. They would realize that the institu- 
tions they cherished — language, church, and 
schools — had a greater likelihood of permanency 
within the British Empire than if Lower Canada 
should become a state of the adjoining republic. 

Elgin spoke French with ease and fluency. 
He addressed meetings in French as well as in 
English during the first year of his governorship; 
and when the legislature assembled at Montreal, 
in January', 1S49, he took advantage of the new 
amendment to the constitution to deliver the 
speech from the throne in the chamber of the 
legislative council in French as well as in English. 
This was an innovation so far as the legislature 
of the United Pro^"inces was concerned. It was 
disliked by the Tories; but it established a usage 
which is followed to this day at the opening and 
proroguing of parliament at Ottawa. aj 



^ Walrond, ibid., 54. 



[154: 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

The British act of 1853 which empowered the a final 
legislature of the United Provinces to make a ^^^^^ 

1 r 1 1 mentof 

complete settlement of the clergy reserves, was the 
not an amendment to the constitution of 1840. ^^^^^ 

. . reserves 

It repealed an act, passed by parliament in 1840, question 
which authorized the legislature to rearrange the 
clergy reserves scheme of 1791,^ and to divide 
the proceeds of the lands among all the Christian 
churches, the larger shares to be assigned to the 
Episcopal church of England and the Presby- 
terian church of Scotland. 

In 1 85 1 the government of the United Prov- "Dis- 
inces was desirous to sweep away the whole *^' 
system. Since 18 19 the system had been, as and 
Sydenham described it in 1840, "the perpetual ^^^^" 
spring of discord, strife, and hatred." But the 
legislature could take no step in this direction 
with the Imperial act of 1840 in effect, and it 
accordingly petitioned the government at West- 
minster for the repeal of the law. 

A coalition government — Conservatives and The 
Whigs — with the Earl of Aberdeen as premier, ^™^^^" 
and the Duke of Newcastle as colonial secretary, m 
was in power in 1853, when parliament was p"^- 
asked to repeal the act of 1840. The petition 

^ After the establishment of the clergy reserves by the 
imperial act of 1791 an attempt was made in Upper Canada 
to establish the tithe system, as it then existed in connection 
with the Episcopalian church in England and Wales and in 
Ireland. The legislature, however, ended this attempt in 
1821. Cf. Statutes of Upper Canada, 1821, ch. 32. 

[ 155] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



End of 
the con- 
nection 
between 
church 
and state 



asked the transfer to the legislature of Canada 
of the power of dealing with these reserves.^ 

The bill, unlike the bills of 1847 and 1848, 
amending the constitution of 1840, met with 
opposition in both the house of commons and 
the house of lords. In the commons, the strongest 
opposition came from Sir John Pakington, who 
had been secretary for the colonies in the Con- 
servative administration of February-December, 
1852. Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, was its 
most resolute opponent in the house of lords. 
But it was carried in both houses; and the only 
restriction imposed in the new law on the action 
of the legislature was a clause protecting the life 
interest of beneficiaries under the act of 1840. 

The legislature of the United Provinces lost no 
time in exercising the power thus conferred upon 
it. In fact, it had been waiting since 1851 for 
authority to proceed. A settlement of the 
clergy reserves question was made in 1854. All 
connection between church and state was then 
ended; and in connection with this Canadian 
bill, there was an incident in the house of com- 
mons which illustrates the new attitude of 
parliament and government at Westminster 
towards colonial legislation. 

A member of the house of commons had moved 
that a copy of the bill of 185 1 of the legislature of 
the United Provinces be laid on the table of the 

^ Cf. Speech by Sir William Molesworth, H. C, March 4, 
1853- 

[156] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

house. Sir George Grey was then colonial secre- ParUa- 
tary in the Aberdeen administration. Usually a ™^^g 
motion of this kind is complied with at once, freedom 
But Grey moved that the motion be discharged. '^^^^ 
The government had no copy of the bill. No vindai 
copy had been forwarded by the governor- J^^^ 
general; "and," added Grey, "if the government 
should write to the colony for a copy, it would 
look like interference on their part with a measure 
pending before the colonial legislature." ^ 

X. Democratic Amendments at Westminster 
to the Constitution of 1840 

The most important of the democratic amend- ParUa- 
ments to the constitution of 1840 were made in °^^°* 

~ sur- 

1854. At the instance of the Aberdeen govern- renders 
ment, parliament then empowered the legislature *^®*'* 

' r r & power 

of the United Provinces to make radical changes 
in its constitution. At the same time parliament 
surrendered a right, under the constitution of 
1840, to a veto on certain bills enacted by the 
legislature. 

These bills were measures concerning religion ReUgion 
and crown lands. In the event of the legislature ""* 

° crown 

passing such measures it was the duty of the lands 
governor-general to reserve them. They were 
sent to Westminster. Copies of them must lie 
for thirty days on the tables of the house of 
commons and the house of lords; and in these 
thirty days it was open to any member of parlia- 
^ Sir George Grey, H. C, December 19, 1854. 

[157] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

ment to move for an address to the Queen praying 
her to withhold the royal assent. In any case 
there could be no royal assent until the bills had 
thus been before parliament for thirty days. 
New At this time — 1852-1854 — the legislature of 

powers ^i^g United Provinces was intent on several 

sought . . . _ , . 

by the retorms to its constitution. It was desirous 
le^siature ^j') ^j^^^ p^j.^ ^f ^j^g members of the legislative 

council should be directly elected; (2) that there 
should be an elected speaker of the council, 
instead of a speaker nominated by the governor- 
general — in practice by the government; (3) that 
a property qualification should not be required 
for election to the assembly; and (4) that the 
legislature should have power to increase the 
number of members of the assembly, unrestrained 
by a section in the constitution of 1840, which 
provided that such an increase could be made 
only by a two-thirds majority in each branch of 
the legislature. 
Oppo- The Aberdeen government was quite ready to 

swon amend the act of 1840 as the legislature desired. 

by the . . ^ . * 

leader It was willing, as was bitterly protested by 
°f*^® Stanley, now Earl of Derby, to agree to "an 
ative absolute subversion of the present constitution"; 
party at willing to make a "change from the present form 
minster of a limited monarchy into what would be practi- 
cally and absolutely a democratical government." ^ 
As Newcastle, the colonial secretary, was of the 
house of lords, the bill making these changes was 

1 H. L. Debates, June 22, 1854. 
C158] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



introduced in the upper house at Westminster. 
In acquainting the house with its provisions, 
Newcastle described the changes desired, and 
intimated that when the Aberdeen government 
acceded to the petition of the legislature three 
courses were open to it: 

The government could have (i) adopted a 
draft measure making these changes in the 
constitution of the legislature, which had been 
sent over from Canada, and by following this 
course parliament at Westminster would have 
settled the question for Canada; (2) it could have 
asked the legislature to pass and send to West- 
minster a bill making these changes, which 
could be confirmed by imperial act; or (3) govern- 
ment could ask parliament to repeal the sections 
of the constitution of 1840 which prevented the 
legislature from making the desired changes 
itself. 

"To have adopted the first course," Newcastle 
told the house of lords, " would have been at 
variance with those principles of colonial govern- 
ment which I have endeavored to carry out 
during the time I have held the seals of the 
colonial office." "The proper course to pursue," 
he continued, "is to legislate no more for the 
colonies than we can possibly help. Indeed, I 
believe that the only legislation now required by 
the colonies consists in undoing the bad legisla- 
tion of former years." ^ 

1 H. L. Debates, June 15, 1854. 

[159] 



Aberdeen 
govern- 
ment 
grants 
all the 
conces- 
sions 
asked 
by the 
legis- 
lature 



"Un- 
doing 
the bad 
legis- 
lation of 
former 
years" 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Failure Newcastle, by inference, thus classed the 

*** ^^ ^ many restraining clauses of the constitution of 

nominated . . 

legislative 1840 as "bad legislation"; and in defending the 
^^^^ amendment which conceded to the legislature 
liberty to reform the legislative council, he 
admitted that the nominated legislative council 
had been a failure. "It does not," he said, 
"exercise that due influence in the colony or the 
legislature which it ought to possess." 

Furthermore, the legislative council, as then 
constituted, was so little esteemed that difficulty 
had been experienced in finding men who were 
willing to accept appointments to it. "It has 
fallen," added Newcastle, "into disfavor with 
the colonists to such an extent that men have 
frequently expressed their repugnance and un- 
willingness, and in many instances their positive 
refusal, to enter the legislative council." ^ 

Opposition to these democratic changes was 
strongest and most persistent in the lords. 
Derby, who was at this time leader of the Con- 
servative party, was anxious to retain direct 
control by parliament at Westminster over the 
legislature of the United Provinces. He was 
intent on retaining some of the restraining 
sections of the act of 1840. But only 39 peers 
voted with him — 39 to 63 — when he divided 
the house at second reading of the bill. 

In the house of commons the opposition lacked 
the spirited lead, the vigor, and the persistence 

1 H. L. Debates, June 15, 1854. 
C160] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

of the opposition in the lords. The bill, com- No 

prehensive and far-reaching as it was, was enacted ^*'°°^ 

in the form in which it had been introduced by siaon 

Newcastle, whose name five years later was to ^^^ 

. . . com- 

be associated with another great concession to mons 

political agitation in Canada — the concession 

to the legislature of the right to make what 

tariffs it pleased. 

In its exercise of its new powers under the im- a partly 
perial acts of 1854, the legislature of the United ^^^^^^^ 
Provinces in 1856 enacted a law for the ad- lative 
dition of elected members to the legislative <=°"^*='^ 
council. The franchise on which these members 
were elected was the same as that on which 
members of the assembly were chosen. It was a 
prerequisite to election that a candidate should 
be the owner of real estate to the value of £2000, 
over and above all incumbrances and debts. 
There was also a provision in the law which 
excluded clergymen of the churches of England, 
of Scotland, and of Rome. The term of the 
elected members was eight years. 

Forty-eight new electoral divisions — twenty- New 
four in Upper Canada and twenty-four in Lower ^^^g°J^ 
Canada — were created by the act of 1856. 
But all these electoral areas were not to elect 
councilors at once. The forty-eight new members 
were to be gradually introduced; and lots were 
drawn to determine which divisions should form 
the groups to elect first. There were only two 
elections between 1856 and Confederation, when 

[161] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

the total number of the council — nominated and 
elected — stood at forty-eight. Of these twenty- 
three had been appointed, and twenty-five were 
of the council by popular election.^ 

With the enactment by the imperial parliament 
of the amending law of 1854, about all that now 
remained to the government at Westminster in 
connection with the administration of the United 
Provinces was the appointment of the governor- 
general. It will be recalled that the provinces 
had enjoyed the right to frame their own customs 
tariffs since 1847; and in that year also, it may 
be added, as a result of the thoroughgoing re- 
vision of the old navigation code by parliament 
at Westminster the United Provinces obtained 
the right to make their own coastwise navigation 
laws as regards the Great Lakes and other inland 
waters. 

In the fourteen years from 1840 to 1854, Great 
Britain had frankly and completely'- surrendered 
to the United Provinces all the rights which were 
once considered a necessary condition to the 
holding of colonies. Great Britain, in those 
years, was, as she is today, responsible for the 
defense of Canada. "She guards our coasts, 
she maintains our troops, she builds our forts, 
and she spends hundreds of thousands among us 
yearly." So Canadians were reminded in 1851 
by George Brown, leader of the Liberal party in 

1 Cf. Statutes of U. P., 19 and 20 Vict., ch. 100; Mackenzics 
"Life and Speeches of George Brown," 308. 

C162] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

Upper Canada, when there was an agitation 
against the payment of the salary of the governor- 
general from the treasury of the United Prov- 
inces.^ 

Except as regards the navy these direct burdens Growth 
of Great Britain were gradually reduced. Most ^^^^' 
of them, in fact, were entirely removed in the pro- 
forty-seven years from Confederation to the great '^^^ 
war. But while still carrying all this responsi- lature 
bility, while still defraying the cost of patrolling 
the coasts, the expense of troops in Canada, and 
the maintenance of forts at Kingston, Quebec, 
and Halifax, Great Britain conceded to the 
United Provinces (i) responsible government; 
(2) the patronage of the crown; (3) control over 
crown lands; (4) control over the civil list; (5) 
the customs; (6) the post office; (7) the clergy 
reserves; (8) freedom from the old navigation 
laws; and (9) liberty to the legislature, as great 
as was then, or at any time, enjoyed by parlia- 
ment at Westminster, to change its constitution, 
and greater than has ever been enjoyed directly 
by congress at Washington. 

In this period Great Britain also obtained for privi- 

the United Provinces the right to the free navi- ^^^^^ 

gation of Lake Michigan, and m the years from ceded 

iSCA to 1866 secured for all the British North ?,* ^, 

. . . . . Washing- 

American provinces, except British Columbia, the ton to 

advantages of commercial reciprocity with the ^*°**^ 

United States. 

^ Mackenzie, "Life of George Brown," 50. 

[163] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

XI. The Unwritten Constitution of the United 
Provinces as Developed from 1841 to 18 ^q 

Most of these concessions, as well as two others 
still to be mentioned, were based on acts of the 
imperial parliament. Three of them — control 
of customs, freedom from the old navigation 
laws, and liberty to enjoy commercial reciprocity 
with the United States — resulted from Great 
Britain's adoption of free trade in 1846, and 
from the liberalizing amendment, made by 
parliament in 1846, to what was known in the 
old colonial code as the British possessions act of 
1845.^ Freedom of navigation of Lake Michigan, 
an exclusively American lake, was secured by a 
treaty negotiated by Great Britain with the 
United States. 

Three rights, however, were assumed by the 
legislature of the United Provinces between 
1 841 and 1859 for which usage was the only 
basis. For these rights, so long as the constitu- 
tion of 1840, as amended by parliament at 
Westminster in 1854, was in operation, no act 
of the imperial parliament could be cited as the 
authority on which the legislature and govern- 
ment proceeded. 

In the order in which they were assumed, these 
rights were (i) the right of the legislature to 
Insist on an executive or cabinet which was sup- 

^ Cf. Porritt, "Sixty Years of Protection in Canada," 
188-189; 8-9 Vict. ch. 93; and 9-10 Vict ch. 94. 

[ 164 ] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

ported by a majority in the legislative assembly 

— 1 841-1849; ^ (2) the right of the legislature 
to exercise the same power that parliament at 
Westminster then exercised in matrimonial causes 

— in other words divorce cases, 1853; and (3) the 
right of the legislature to enact protective tariffs 
without interference from Whitehall, 1859. 



XII. The Legislature of the United Provinces 
Assumes Control over Divorce 

The right of the legislature of the United 
Provinces to grant relief in matrimonial causes 
would seem to have been assumed in 1853.^ 
Parliament at Westminster exercised this right 
from 1551 to 1857, when the divorce court in 
London was created.^ 

Not more than four or five divorce bills 
were enacted by the legislature of the United 
Provinces from 1853 to Confederation. But at 
Confederation it was not practicable, owing to 
the opposition of Catholic Lower Canada, to 
follow the example of England of 1857, and 

^ The history of the struggle by which responsible govern- 
ment was won has already been recounted. 

^ The legislature of Upper Canada, in the last year of its 
existence, 1840, had enacted a divorce bill in the interest of 
John Stuart, of London, in that province. Cf. Statutes of 
Upper Canada, 3 Vict., ch. Ixxii. This was, as far as can be 
ascertained, the only divorce bill enacted by the legislature 
of Upper Canada during the forty-nine years of its existence. 

' Cf. Clifford, "A History of Private Bill Legislation," 
I> 389-391. 

[165: 



Matri- 
monial 
causes 



Five 

provinces 
still 

without 
courts 
for 

matri- 
monial 
causes 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

delegate all matrimonial causes to the courts in 
all the provinces. By a usage, the origin of which 
has thus been described, it comes about that 
today petitioners for divorce in Ontario, Quebec, 
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta — the five 
provinces in which courts with jurisdiction in 
divorce cases have never been established — 
must go for relief to parliament at Ottawa.^ 

XIII. The Fiscal Freedom of the United 
Provinces 

Protec- The right to enact protective tariffs without 

f^?„ interference from Westminster — tariffs which 
tariffs 

against might be detrimental to the commercial interests 

im**rts °^ ^^^ United Kingdom, but which were regarded 

as in the interest of the United Provinces — was 

first asserted by the legislature in 1858. After 

one strongly worded protest from the colonial 

office the right was conceded by the British 

government in 1859. 

Influence Once again in the period between the rebellions 

°^^l, in Lower and Upper Canada and Confederation, 

American . . . 

tariff of but not for the last time in these twenty-nine 
^**^ years, American influence and example had 
weight in determining policies in Canada; and 
in this instance in affecting also policies of colo- 
nial governments in Australia and New Zealand. 

It was the development of manufacturing in 
New England and in other states adjacent to 

^ Cf. Sinclair, "Rules and Practice before the Parliament 
of Canada upon Bills of Divorce," 1-3. 

[166] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

Canada, under the United States tarifF of 1842, 
that gave the impetus at Hamilton, Toronto, and 
Montreal to the protectionist movement.^ The 
movement had its origin at Hamilton in 1847. 
It resulted in the enactment in 1858 by the legis- 
lature of the United Provinces of what is known 
in Canadian fiscal history as the Cayley tarifF. 

The Cayley tariff takes its name from the cayiey 
minister who framed it and piloted it through *^^^ 
the legislative assembly, where in accordance with 
British constitutional procedure all money bills 
originated. It was a frankly protectionist tariff 
— the first tariff to protect domestic manufacturers 
enacted in any of the British North American 
provinces, or in any colony that is now of the 
dominions. 

The measure superseded the tariff of the 
United Provinces of 1856. In this tariff — a 
tariff exclusively for revenue — the general range 
of duties on manufactured goods, imported 
either from the United Kingdom or the United 
States, was fifteen per cent. Only in a few 
instances were the duties on these imports as 
high as twenty per cent. 

In the Cayley tariff the general range of duties compari- 
was increased to twenty per cent. Duties as ^erican 
high as twenty-five per cent were levied on tariff 
boots, shoes, harness, and saddlery, on leather, 
clothing, and wearing apparel. These duties 

^ Cf. Edward Porritt, "Canada's National Policy," Political 
Science Quarterly, June, 1917, 197-208. 

[167: 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA ; 

were nearly as high and as protective as those in 

the United States tariff of 1842. 
First anti- There was no concealment by the government 
dumping Qf ^j^g United Provinces of the character of the 

clause -rr T\ • • 

new tariff. Protectionist arguments were ad- 
vanced from the treasury bench in the assembly 
in support of the higher duties. In particular 
when objection was made to the increased duty 
on soap, a duty in the interest of a factory in 
Montreal, Rose, the attorney-general, assured 
the house that the change was made because the 
Canadian market was flooded with the refuse 
soap of British manufacturers, which was entered 
at the customs house at prices below those at 
which soap had ever been sold in the United 
Kingdom.^ 
Tory By this time, 1858, the name "Tory" was 

^"^ disappearing from the phraseology of Canadian 

assumes . ^'^ ° i i • 

anew politics. It began to be dropped m 1855, after 
the Liberals, or "Grits," as they were called, 
had carried to success their agitation against the 
clergy reserves. The new name of the Tories 
was "Liberal-Conservatives." The name was 
coined by a Tory newspaper — the Spectator, of 
Hamilton — which was convinced that there was 
no future in Canada for a political party living 
on the Bourbon Toryism of the United Empire 
Loyalists, or of the Family Compact, hopelessly 
struggling for ascendancy in church and state. 

1 Cf. Porritt, " Sixty Years of Protection in Canada," 

228-230. 

[168] 



name 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



Hamilton had been the center of the movement 
for the protectionist tariff of 1858. The Spectator, 
to which Isaac Buchanan, the father of what has 
been known in Canada since 1879 as the National 
PoUcy, was a frequent contributor, had given 
the new movement its energetic support. It 
accordingly welcomed the Cayley tariff with 
enthusiasm; and in expressing this welcome it 
acknowledged that the United Provinces were 
following the example of the United States. 

"The free traders, so called," wrote the Specta- 
tor, " have been worsted, and they have probably 
learned by this time that their nostrums are by 
no means palatable to the people of this country. 
Though this country is not, and we trust never 
will be, republican, its material interests are the 
same as those of our republican neighbors. Can- 
ada, therefore, wants no untried theory of trade 
and industry, seeing that we have the actual and 
dearly bought experience of the United States." ^ 

No halt in the protectionist movement followed 
the success of 1858. In August of that year 
Cayley was succeeded by Alexander Gait. The 
new minister of finance was a man of much force, 
independence, and individuality, who afterwards 
achieved wide fame as one of the fathers of Con- 
federation. He was also one of the earliest and 
most resourceful protagonists of the movement 
for complete liberty for Canada to make her own 
commercial treaties. "Canada first," was Gait's 
1 Spectator, Hamilton, July 30, 1858. 

[169] 



Father 
of the 
Canadian 
National 
Policy 



Following 
American 
example 



Alex- 
ander 
Gait 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Gait's 
tariff of 
1869 



Governor- 
general's 
helpless- 
ness 



Gait's 
challenge 
to free 
traders in 
England 



conception of the duty of a Canadian statesman, 
both before and after Confederation. 

Gait was ready and wiUing to concede more 
protection to Canadian manufacturers. He 
framed the tariff of 1859 with this intent; and 
it was this tariff that brought Gait into conflict 
with Newcastle, who in 1859 was again colonial 
secretary — this time in the Palmerston-Russell 
Whig administration of 1 859-1 866. 

Elgin had retired in 1854. He had been suc- 
ceeded by Sir Edmund Walker Head. In forward- 
ing the new tariff to the colonial office, Head ex- 
pressed regret at its protectionist features. " But," 
he added, "I must necessarily leave the represen- 
tatives of the people in parliament to adopt the 
mode of raising supplies which they believe to be 
the most beneficial to the constituencies." 

Gait had anticipated that he would come into 
conflict with the free trade government at White- 
hall over the new tariff. This may be inferred 
from the speech in which he introduced his bill 
to the assembly in March, 1859. 

The policy pursued with regard to taxation in this country 
— he then said — has been objected to in England. But I am 
perfectly certain that this house will never permit any other 
body to interfere with its proper right to determine what 
shall be the amount and mode in which taxes shall be put 
upon the people. Canada has adopted the protective policy; 
and it is scarcely fair for parties in England to criticize our 
policy, when in point of fact the greater part of our debt was 
incurred when they had a protective policy in England.^ 

1 Glohe, Toronto, March 14, 1859. 
[ 170 ] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



British manufacturers promptly and energeti- 
cally protested to the colonial office against the 
increased duties in the Gait tariff, especially 
against increases in the iron and steel schedule, 
which, as they asserted, would divert much of 
the trade of Sheffield with the United Provinces 
to the United States. 

Newcastle was a free trader. He had sup- 
ported Peel in 1846 when, as Earl of Lincoln, he 
was a member of the house of commons. His 
sympathies were consequently with the protesting 
manufacturers. In principle he was opposed to 
the upbuilding of a protectionist system in 
Canada. This he made clear to the governor- 
general in a dispatch dated August 13, 1859. 
But, as will be recalled, Newcastle had taken a 
prominent part in creating the democratic con- 
stitution then in operation in the United Prov- 
inces, and political conditions in Canada were 
well in mind when he wrote his dispatch to Head. 

Whenever the authenticated act of the Canadian parlia- 
ment on this subject arrives — he wrote, concerning the Gait 
tariff bill — I may probably feel that I can take no other 
course than signify to you the Queen's assent to it, notwith- 
standing the objections raised against the law in this country. 
But I consider it my duty, no less to the colony than to the 
mother country, to express my regret that the experience of 
England, which has fully proved the injurious effect of the 
protective system, and the advantage of low duties upon 
manufactures, should be lost sight of, and that such an act 
as the present should have been passed.^ 



Protests 
by 

British 
manu- 
facturers 



New- 
castle 
supports 
the 

British 
manu- 
facturers 



New- 
castle 
helpless 



^ Egerton and Grant, 348-349. 



[171] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Gait's 

defense 

of the 

new 

fiscal 

policy 



Fiscal 

freedom 

aright 

of the 

Canadian 

people 



Provincial 
govern- 
ment 
respon- 
sible only 
to the 
people of 
Canada 



Gait, through the governor-general, then as 
now the medium of communication between the 
cabinet and the colonial office, replied to New- 
castle on October 25, 1859. He replied in a 
memorandum, approved by the cabinet at 
Quebec, which among state papers of the nine- 
teenth century concerning colonies that are now 
of the dominions, ranks second only to Durham's 
Report of 1838. 

The paragraphs of importance in this study of 
the evolution of the Dominion of Canada are 
three in number. "Respect to the imperial 
government," wrote Gait, in the first of these 
paragraphs — a paragraph in which he stated 
what he conceived were the rights of the govern- 
ment of the United Provinces under the written 
and unwritten constitution of 1840 — 

must always dictate the desire to satisfy them that the policy 
of this country is neither hastily nor unwisely formed, and 
that due regard is had to the interests of the mother country 
as well as of the province. But the government of Canada, 
acting for its legislature and people, cannot through those 
feelings of deference which they owe to the imperial author- 
ities, in any measure waive or diminish the right of the people 
of Canada to decide for themselves both as to the mode and 
extent to which taxation shall be imposed. 

The provincial ministry — Gait assured Newcastle — are 
at all times ready to afford explanations in regard to acts of 
the legislature to which they are party, but subject to their 
duty and allegiance to her majesty, their responsibility in all 
general questions of policy must be to the provincial parlia- 
ment, by whose confidence they administer the affairs of the 
country. And in the imposition of taxation it is so plainly 

[172] 



.J 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



necessary that the administration and the people be in accord, 
that the former cannot admit responsibility or require approval 
beyond that of the local legislature. 

Self-government — reads the second of these paragraphs 

— would be utterly annihilated if the views of the imperial 
government were to be preferred to those of the people of 
Canada. It is, therefore, the duty of the present government 
distinctly to affirm the right of the Canadian legislature to 
adjust the taxation of the people in the way they deem best 

— even if it should unfortunately happen to meet with the 
disapproval of the imperial ministry. Her majesty cannot 
be advised to disallow such acts unless her advisers are pre- 
pared to assume the administration of the affairs of the 
colony, irrespective of the views of its inhabitants. 

The imperial government — wrote Gait, in the third para- 
graph of his historic memorandum — are not responsible 
for the debts and engagements of Canada. They do not 
maintain its judicial, educational, or civil services. They 
contribute nothing to the internal government of the country; 
and the provincial legislature, acting through a ministry 
directly responsible to it, has to make provision for all these 
wants. They must necessarily claim and exercise the widest 
latitude as to the nature and extent of the burdens to be 
placed upon the industry of the people. The provincial 
government believes that his grace must share their con- 
viction on this important subject; but as serious evils would 
have resulted had his grace taken a different course, it is 
wiser to prevent future complications by distinctly stating 
the position that must be maintained by every Canadian 
administration.^ 



Gait's 
concep- 
tion 
of 

colonial 
auton- 
omy 



Re- 
lations 
of the 
imperial 
govern- 
ment 
with the 
province 



After Great Britain had conceded responsible 
government to all the British North American 
provinces, and had also adopted free trade, there 
were at least two instances in which the colonial 



1 Egerton and Grant, 349-351. 



C 173 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

office had interfered with the fiscal poUcies of 
colonies with responsible government. The legis- 
lature of New Brunswick in 1848 had passed a 
bill under which bounties were to be paid to 
encourage the cultivation of hemp. At Charlotte- 
town in 1852 the legislature of Prince Edward 
Island passed a bill under which bounties were 
to be paid to fishermen to offset the competition 
the island fishermen were then meeting from the 
bounty-aided fishermen of New England. Both 
these laws were disallowed by the government at 
Westminster.^ 

It would have been possible, moreover, for 
Newcastle to have objected to the tariff of the 
United Provinces of 1859 on the ground that 
it endangered the treaty of reciprocity with the 
United States, which was then in force, a treaty 
for which the British government was responsible; 
and also on the ground that it was injurious to 
the empire at large. 

The second of these objections could easily 
have been lodged against the new tariff, because, 
as will be recalled, after the conflict over the 
rebellion losses bill of 1849 the principle adopted 
at the colonial office in regard to colonies with 
responsible government was that Great Britain 
"has no interest whatever in exercising any 
greater influence in the internal affairs of the 
colonies than is indispensable, either for the 
purpose of preventing any one colony from 

1 Cf. Speech by Sir John Pakington, H. C, March 4, 1853. 

[ 174] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

adopting measures injurious to another, or to 
the empire at large." ^ 

The New Brunswick and Prince Edward Prece- 
Island precedents were, however, not pressed ^^^ *°* 
into service by the colonial office at this crisis ignored 
of 1859. The changes in the tariff adverse to 
American manufacturing interests, changes which 
had much to do with the denunciation of the 
treaty in 1865 by the United States,^ were ignored 
in the correspondence between Westminster and 
Quebec. Nor was there any attempt to enforce 
the principle that a government at Whitehall had 
the right to interfere when legislation was pending 
in a colony that was injurious to other colonies 
or to the empire at large. 

The Cayley and Gait tariffs directly endangered interests 
no interest of the maritime provinces, because, ^jariame 
except for a little coal from Sydney, Nova Scotia, provinces 
none of the provinces "down by the sea" marketed 
any of its products in Lower or Upper Canada. 
But these tariffs of 1 858-1 859 did endanger the 
reciprocity treaty, in which New Brunswick, 
Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island had as 
large an interest as the United Provinces. 

The tariffs were also distinctly adverse to the 
iron and steel, textile and leather industries of 
the United Kingdom. They came, moreover, 
as a shock to both British statesmen and British 

1 Cf. Earl Grey, "The Colonial Policy of Lord John 
Russell's Administration," I, 17. 

^ Cf. Porritt, "Sixty Years of Protection in Canada," 
142-144. 

[175] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



A shock 
to British 
states- 
men and 
British 
com- 
mercial 
Interests 



No 
alter- 
native 
open to 
Newcastle 



Charter 
of the 
fiscal 
freedom 
of the 
dominions 



Other 

colonies 

follow the 

example 

of the 

United 

Provinces 



commercial and manufacturing interests; for it 
had never been conceived in England in 1846, 
when protection and the old commercial policy of 
the empire — the protectionist tariff and the old 
navigation code — were abandoned, that British 
colonies would dream of imposing protective 
duties on imports from the United Kingdom. 

Newcastle and the Whig government at 
Westminster were confronted with the fact that 
responsible government had been established in 
the United Provinces for ten years, and that 
Gait's memorandum left them no alternative, 
unless they were prepared to establish military 
rule in the United Provinces, and in the colonies 
that followed the example of Canada. 

The royal assent, as Newcastle's dispatch to 
the governor-general of August 13 had fore- 
shadowed, was not withheld. The tariff bill 
became a law; and Gait's memorandum of 
October 25, 1859, became the charter of fiscal 
freedom of the colonies with responsible govern- 
ment. It became, in fact, part of the unwritten 
constitution of the oversea dominions. 

Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Ed- 
ward Island in the years from 1859 to Confeder- 
ation did not follow the example of the United 
Provinces. These provinces had then no manu- 
facturing industries to protect. Newfoundland 
has never had a protective tariff. But Victoria 
adopted protection in 1864; New South Wales in 
1865; British Columbia in 1867; New Zealand 

C176] 



of a 
series of 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 

in 1881; South Australia in 1882; and until the 
British preference was embodied in the Canadian 
tariff of 1897 not a single colony had enacted any 
preference for imports from the United Kingdom 
or for the sister colonies. Into all British colonies, 
from 1846 to 1897, manufactures from the United 
States were admitted on exactly the same terms 
as manufactures from the United Kingdom. 

The concession by Great Britain to the United Last 
Provinces of the right to make their own tariffs 
was the last of a long series of concessions that con- 
began in 1841, after responsible government had *=^^^'°°^ 
been established as the result of the liberal 
policy of Sydenham and of the democratic spirit 
in which he interpreted his instructions from the 
colonial office. 

XIV. A Nation Created out of Two Backwoods 
Provinces 

Political conditions in the United Provinces were Pouacai 
at no time ideal. There was intense bitterness in ^°^' 

dltions 

the political life of Upper Canada until the clergy in the 
reserves question was settled in 1854, and the 
influence of the Family Compact was eradicated 
in 1859-60. Corruption in connection with railway 
legislation and railway subsidies and bonds was 
abounding.^ There was much friction and jealousy 

^ A detailed description of some of these conditions is 
embodied in a report of 115 pages from a select committee of 
the legislative council — a committee that in 1855 investi- 
gated charges made against Francis Hincks, premier of the 
United Provinces from 185 1 to 1854. 

C 177] 



United 
Provinces 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Develop- 
ments 
due to 
local 
conditions 



between Upper and Lower Canada over the de- 
mand of Upper Canada for representation based 
on population. There was, in fact, such friction, 
and such instabiHty of government arising from 
the system of ministries with double heads and 
double majorities, that a federal union instead of 
the legislative union of 1840 had become inevitable 
as early as 1856. 

Elections to the legislative assembly were 
characterized by bribery, corruption, and most 
of the artifices of the political boss. Speakers of 
the assembly were sometimes partisan. Sharp 
and discreditable manoeuvers in constitutional 
practice were resorted to by at least one hard- 
pressed ministry. The civil service was recruited 
from political heelers, with little regard for 
economy or efficiency; and special interests, intent 
on using the constitutional machinery t)f taxation 
for their own advantage, promptly entrenched 
themselves in the tariffs enacted after 1858. 

After the numerous amendments to the con- 
stitution of 1840 made by the imperial parliament 
between 1847 and 1854, not one of these evils 
was inherent in the system of government — in 
the constitutional machinery created either by 
parliament at Westminster or by the legislature 
of the United Provinces. Nor were they due, j 
directly or indirectly, to any influence or control 
exercised by the colonial office. They were all 
developed by local as distinct from constitutional 
conditions; and after the sweeping amendments 

C178] 



EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 



made at Westminster in 1854, it was easily 
within the power of the legislature to remedy or 
eradicate them all. 

Despite the friction between Lower and Upper 
Canada, and despite these blemishes, a political 
civilization extremely democratic in character 
was created between 1840 and 1867. With the 
political and constitutional opportunities that 
were afforded by Great Britain to all the British 
North American provinces in those years, the 
legislature and the statesmen of the United 
Provinces, aided by governors-general such as 
Sydenham, Bagot, Elgin, Head, and Monck, 
created a nation out of two backwoods provinces. 

"You can mark during that period," said 
Monck,^ in his farewell address to the last legisla- 
ture of the United Provinces, "the firm consolida- 
tion of your institutions, both political and 
municipal. You can mark the extended settle- 
ment of your country, the development of your 
internal resources and foreign trade, the improve- 
ment and simplification of your laws, and above 
all the education which the adoption of the 
system of responsible government has afforded to 
your statesmen in the well-tried ways of the 
British constitution." ^ 

There was, it can be added, no exaggeration 
or overstatement in these farewell words of the 
last governor-general of the United Provinces. 

^ Governor-general from 1861 to 1867. 

' Journals of the Legislative Council, August 15, 1866. 

C 179] 



A demo- 
cratic 
political 
civiliza- 
tion 



A gov- 
ernor- 
general's 
survey 
of the 
achieve- 
ments of 
1840- 
1867 



CHAPTER VI 

THE INFLUENCES AND FORCES 

THAT BROUGHT ABOUT 

CONFEDERATION 

Canadian, X"^ OUR distinct and easily traceable in- 

British, ■-* 



F 



and ' JL fluences worked to bring about Con- 
American federation and the enactment of the British 

Influences ^t i a • i • • r i 

North America act — the constitution oi the 
Dominion — by the imperial parliament in 1867. 
Two of these influences were at work in 
Canada. The first of them was operative in the 
United Provinces; the second in the Maritime 
Provinces. The third influence was potent at 
Westminster; and the fourth, which affected 
political conditions both in Canada and at 
Westminster, but especially at Westminster, was 
American. 
Example The American influence was developed partly 
and fear of Q^^. q£ ^^^ example of the United States, and 

United . 

States partly, it must be conceded, out of fear of the 
United States. The example of the United 
States — the success of the federal system — 
stimulated the movement for confederation in 
the United Provinces.^ Apprehension in England 
concerning the attitude of the United States 
towards British North America, especially during 
and at the close of the civil war of 1 861-1865, 

^ Cf. Mackenzie, 342. 
[180] 



FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION 

greatly strengthened the influences at West- 
minster that were favorable to any workable 
plan for a union of all the provinces under British 
rule from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast.^ 

In the Maritime Provinces the influence that union of 
worked for a confederation of the British North ™^**™« 

provinces 

American provinces was the fact that in 1863- contem- 
1864 the Maritime Provinces, which then had ^^^f^ 
many interests in common, and scarcely any isei 
that were antagonistic, were contemplating a 
legislative union. 

All these influences were at work from 1861 to Failure 
1867. Two had been in existence and operating |>^*^sis- 
from 1858; for in that year it was shown un- union of 
mistakably that the legislative union of Upper ^^^^^ 
and Lower Canada was a failure as far as Upper Lower 
Canada was concerned; and there was also an ^*^^* 
intimation in the speech from the throne, in the 
house of lords, at Westminster, that the imperial 
government would welcome a union of all the 
British North American provinces. 

I. The Origin of the Confederation Idea 

If Great Britain was to retain the half of the con- 
North American continent that remained to her ****''" 

atlon 

after the American revolution. Confederation sug- 
was inevitable as soon as the peace of Versailles p!,*^f„ 

. - in 1783 

was signed. It was urged, in fact, as early as 

^ Cf. Debates on British North America Act, H. L., Febru- 
ary 27, March 4, also Queen's speech at end of session, August 
21, 1867. 

[181] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



A con- 
federated 
Canada 
as a 
rival to 
United 
States 



Credit 
accorded 
to Moore 



A sug- 
gestion 
from 
parlia- 
ment 
in 1837 



1783 by Colonel Moore, a government engineer, 
who under instructions from Guy Carleton, 
governor of Quebec, reported on the resources 
and defenses of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. 

Moore recommended the union of the Mari- 
time Provinces with the territory out of which 
in 1791 Lower and Upper Canada were carved. 
He urged that by the establishment of uniform 
government and laws, intercourse and mutual 
interests would be created; that "a great country 
may yet be raised up in America"; and that 
"only by union was there any likelihood of 
saving what remained to Great Britain upon 
the continent of America, and of building up a 
formidable rival to the American states." ^ 

All that is known of Moore is that he was a 
military engineer, and that he wrote this report 
in 1783; but Canadian historians credit him 
with having been the first Englishman to con- 
ceive of a great- Canadian confederation, such as 
came into being between Dominion Day, 1867, 
and the great war. 

A little more than half a century after Moore 
dreamed his dream, the house of commons at 
Westminster in 1837 adopted a resolution in 
which was emphasized the need of some arrange- 
ment between the Maritime Provinces and Lower 
and Upper Canada for the joint regulation and 
adjustment of interests that were common to all 
the British North American provinces.^ 

^ Cf. Boyd, 173. * Cf. Mackenzie, 339. 

[182] 



FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION 
Durham in his report of 1838 recommended Durham's 

scheme 
of 1838 



that the bill for the union of Lower and Upper ^'^■^^^^ 



Canada "should contain provisions by which 
any or all of the other North American colonies 
may, on application of the legislature, with the 
consent of the two Canadas, or their united 
legislature, be admitted into the union on such 
terms as may be agreed on between them." 

The idea of a union of all the British North An 
American provinces was thus much older than ^^^\ 
the yoking of Lower and Upper Canada in 1840; piea for 
and this union of two provinces, with nearly as ^^~ 
many interests which were sharply antagonistic aUon 
as interests which they had in common, had ^ ^*" 
been in existence for only a single decade when 
an Upper Canadian member of the legislative 
assembly — Merritt, of Lincoln — asked the 
house to agree to an address to the crown for a 
constitutional convention to consider a federal 
union. This was in 1851, before the under-repre- 
sentation of Upper Canada in the legislative 
assembly had become a grievance with Canadians 
west of the Ottawa River, and only seven 
members voted with Merritt. 

IL Popular Dissatisfaction in Upper 
Canada with the Union of 1840 

It was the census of 1851 that revealed that census 
Upper Canada was inadequately represented in °^ *^" 
the legislative assembly. Experience of the 
working of legislative union showed that through 

[ 183 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Safeguards 
for Upper 
Canada 
that 

became a 
boomerang 



indirect taxation by which the revenues were 
raised, and also through the difference in social 
habits and requirements of the people of Upper 
Canada and of the habitants of the French 
province, Upper Canada was paying three-fourths 
of the expenditures of the United Provinces. 

With the revelation of these facts there began 
the movement of Upper Canada for a representa- 
tive system based on population. After the 
sweeping and radical amendments made in 1854 
at Westminster to the constitution of 1840, it 
was within the power of the legislature to 
remedy this grievance, and to increase the repre- 
sentation of Upper Canada in the legislative 
assembly. 

French Canada was, however, well aware of 
two facts in the history of the act of union of 
1840. It knew that the assigning to Upper 
Canada of as many representatives in the legisla- 
tive assembly and the legislative council as were 
assigned to Lower Canada was done to give the 
population of British origin in the United Prov- 
inces a preponderating influence in the legislature 
and the government. Canadians of British origin 
were to have this ascendancy, although from 
1830 to 1840 the population of Upper Canada 
was much less than that of Lower Canada. 

French Canada also knew that the clause in 
the act of union making it impossible to vary the 
apportionment of members in the assembly, 
except by a two-thirds vote of both the assembly 

[184] 



FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION 

and the council, was intended to safeguard the 
representation as determined at the union. 

The leaders of French-Canadians in the legis- Lower 
lature could not gainsay the census statistics of ^^^^ 
1 85 1. Nor could it be denied that the larger part claims 
of the revenue was paid by Upper Canada. But ^ 
French-Canadians refused to concede the claim Canada 
of Upper Canada for a larger representation in 
the legislature; and nothing short of another 
rebellion, and another intervention by the im- 
perial government similar to that of 183 7-1 840, 
could have remedied the grievance of Upper 
Canada, had not French Canada, as time went 
on, become willing to consider a federal union, 
with a legislature for each province, charged 
with the administration of exclusively provincial 
business. 

No appeal for representation by population French 
moved French Canada as long as the union ^f^** 

° _ blocks 

of 1840 continued. French-Canadian leaders, taking 
moreover, were so determined that nothing g^^*** 
should endanger the position of their people in Bay 
the legislature, that for some years they blocked ^°™,P*°y 
all proposals for taking over the territory of the 
Hudson Bay Company by the government of 
the United Provinces, lest its settlement and 
development should add to the political power 
of Upper Canada.^ 

1 Cf. Mackenzie, 102. 



C185] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

III. Imperial Aspects of Confederation 

At this point the difficulties between Upper 
and Lower Canada on the question of representa- 
tion in the legislature touched an important 
imperial interest; for the imperial government at 
this time was much concerned about the future 
of the vast stretch of country lying between the 
western boundary of Upper Canada and the 
Rocky Mountains. 

Population was pouring into the northwestern 
states. Settlement was coming near the boundary 
line that divides these states today from Mani- 
toba and Saskatchewan; and Great Britain was 
nervous lest American settlement might push 
into the uninhabited prairie country of Canada, 
and lest international complications might ensue. ^ 

If the United Provinces would not, or could 
not, take over responsibility for the government 
and settlement of the Hudson Bay Company's 
territory, its settlement presented a new and 
difficult problem for the colonial office; and it 
was for this reason, among others, that in 1864- 
1866 the government at Westminster extended 
such a welcome hand to statesmen from Canada 
with proposals for a confederation of the British 
North American provinces. 

Old as were the suggestions for confederation, 
there were great difficulties to be overcome before 

^ Cf. Speech by Earl of Carnarvon, H. L., February 19, 
1867. 

C186] 



FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION 

the dreams of Moore, Durham and Merritt civU 
could be realized. Several decades might have !!^^ 

, . ° United 

passed before the Dommion of Canada came states 
into being, had it not been for the failure in some 
important aspects of the union of 1840, and for 
the civil war in the United States. 

The civil war, and the international difficulties End of 
it developed, raised apprehensions at Toronto, ^^^^°^ 
Quebec, and Ottawa, and above all at West- treaty 
minster, concerning the defense of the British 
North American provinces.^ Resulting from the 
civil war there came threats from Washington — 
threats made good in 1865 — of the denuncia- 
tion of the reciprocity treaty of 1854. There 
were also threats, which were not made good, of 
abrogating the article in the convention of 181 8 
— an article which Great Britain had rigidly 
insisted on at the time the convention was 
made — which interdicted the maintenance of 
vessels of war on the Great Lakes, and of ending 
the bonding privileges which so greatly facili- 
tated transport by the railways and on the 
Great Lakes. 

There was, moreover, the isolation of British isolation 
Columbia, and its partial dependence for transport g^jy^jj 
facilities on San Francisco; and there was the Coiiimbia 
danger, which has already been alluded to, that 
American settlers in the northwestern states 
might look with covetous eyes on the splendid 

^ Cf. Buckle, "The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of 
Beaconsfield," IV, 475. 

[187] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Hudson 
Bay Com- 
pany's 
tenure of 
power 



Conditions 

that 

afiected 

all 

provinces 



Deadlock 
in United 
Provinces 



grain-growing and ranching country in the 
territory between the Lake of the Woods and the 
eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains. 

The only governing power until 1869 in the 
territory out of which since 1871 there have 
been organized the provinces of Manitoba, 
Saskatchewan, and Alberta was the Hudson 
Bay Company. Its tenure of authority had 
long been wearing thin. The British govern- 
ment dreaded any large inroad of Americans 
into the country before it should be taken over 
by a Canadian government, and adequately 
organized for defense and civil administration. 

Upper Canada had no practical concern over 
the isolation of British Columbia. That was an 
unfortunate condition that troubled only the 
English settlers in the Pacific coast province 
and the colonial office at Westminster. But 
Upper Canada was greatly interested in the 
almost uninhabited regions beyond its western 
boundary line. It was also practically interested 
in the bonding question; and Upper Canada, 
Lower Canada, and the Maritime Provinces 
were directly interested in the defense of the 
British North American provinces, and in the 
disturbing economic changes that would result 
from the denunciation by the United States of 
the Elgin-Marcy treaty. 

All these conditions, as well as the movement 
in the Maritime Provinces in the early sixties 
for a legislative union, made for Confederation. 

[188] 



FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION 



But it was the deadlock in the United Provinces, 
resulting from the inadequate representation of 
Upper Canada and the instability of govern- 
ments based on double majorities and double- 
headed cabinets/ that forced the question to the 
front, and from 1858 made a federal union of 
Upper and Lower Canada, or a union including 
all the British North American provinces, the 
dominant issue in Canadian politics. 

There were many fathers of Confederation.^ 
Thirty-three statesmen of the United Provinces, 
the Maritime Provinces, and Newfoundland 
were of the constitutional conventions at Char- 
lottetown and Quebec in 1864 at which the Do- 
minion was created. But it was Alexander Tulloch 
Gait — Gait of the epoch-making correspondence 
with Newcastle over the tariffs of 1858 and 
1859 — who first pushed the idea of Confederation 
into the realm of practical politics at Toronto 
and Quebec and also at Westminster. 

In the session of 1858, before he succeeded 
Cayley as minister of finance, Gait outlined a 
plan for federal union in a speech in the legislative 

1 Cf. Francis J. Audet, "Canadian Dates and Events — 
1492-1915," 105. 

" "Confederation will stand for all time as the monument 
of the work accomplished by the devotion, the unselfishness, 
and the far-sighted vision of those men whom we are all proud 
to call the fathers of federation. To these men and their 
work we owe a debt which we can never repay." — The Duke 
of Devonshire, governor-general of Canada, at the dedication 
of the new parliament house, at Ottawa, July 2, 1917. 

[189] 



Gait 
pushes 
Confed- 
eration 
to the 
front 



His fear 
of 

absorp- 
tion of 
provinces 
by 

United 
States 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

assembly — a speech in which he declared, with 
characteristic outspokenness, that unless such a 
union were effected, the British North American 
provinces would ultimately drift into the United 
States.^ 

Edmund Walker Head, Elgin's successor as 
governor-general, did all in his power to forward 
the scheme Gait had outlined on July 6, 1858; 
and the first intimation to the world at large 
that the imperial government was coming into 
the discussion of Confederation was an announce- 
ment in the speech from the throne in the legisla- 
tive council of the United Provinces, at the end 
of the session of 1858, that the Maritime 
Provinces and the imperial government, were 
about to be invited to discuss, with representatives 
of the United Provinces, the principles on which 
a "bond of a federal character, uniting the 
provinces of British North America, may perhaps 
hereafter be practicable." ^ 

IV. An Appeal to Whitehall 

In the interval between the end of the session 

of 1858 and the beginning of that of 1859, Gait 

and Carrier were at Whitehall in the interest 

provinces ^f ^]^g ^^^ movement. Representatives of the 

selves Maritime Provinces had been at the colonial 

office in the previous year, in the interest of a 

union of these provinces. They had been told 

by Labouchere, secretary for the colonies in the 

1 Cf. Boyd, 174. 2 7^j^., 175, 

[ 190 ] 



FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION 

Palmerston administration of 1855-1858, that 
union was a question for the provinces them- 
selves, and that no obstacles would be thrown in 
their way by the imperial government. 

In October, 1858, when Gait and Cartier were Buiwer 
in London, the Derby administration of 1858- ^^°° 
1859 was in power, with Buiwer Lytton as colonial 
colonial secretary. It was Buiwer Lytton who ^^*^®*"^ 
piloted the act creating representative govern- 
ment for British Columbia through the house of 
commons. It was Buiwer Lytton also who was 
responsible for the paragraph in the Queen's 
speech at the end of the session of 1858 expressing 
the hope that the new colony on the Pacific 
coast would be but one step in the process by 
which the British dominions in North America 
might be peopled in an unbroken chain from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific by a loyal population of 
subjects of the British crown. 

Gait and Cartier laid the case for Confederation Case for 
before Buiwer Lytton in a memorandum dated ^°^_^^' 

-' _ eration 

October 23, 1858 — one of the really important 
documents in the constitutional history of the 
Dominion. The act of union of 1840 and its 
provisions regarding representation in the legisla- 
tive assembly were recalled. The colonial secre- 
tary was reminded that in 1840 Lower Canada 
possessed a much larger population than Upper 
Canada, and that in the first decade of the union 
representation as determined by the act had led 
to no difficulties. 

[ 191 : 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



But since that period — continued the memorandum — 
the growth of population has been more rapid in the west- 
ern section — in Upper Canada — and claims are now made on 
behalf of its inhabitants for giving them representation in 
the legislature in proportion to their numbers. These claims, 
involving, it is believed, a most serious interference with the 
principles on which union was based, have been and are 
being strenuously resisted by Lower Canada. The result is 
shown by an agitation fraught with great danger to the 
peaceful and harmonious working of our constitutional 
system, and consequently detrimental to the progress of the 
provinces. 

The necessity of providing a remedy for a state of things 
that is yearly becoming worse, and of allaying feelings that 
are being daily aggravated by the contentions of political 
parties — continued the memorandum — has impressed the 
advisers of her majesty's representative in Canada with 
the importance of seeking for such a mode of dealing with these 
difficulties as may forever remove them. In this view it has 
appeared to them advisable to consider how far the union of 
Lower with Upper Canada could be rendered essentially 
federative in combination with the provinces of New Bruns- 
wick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, together with 
such other territories as it may be desirable to incorporate 
with confederation from the possessions of the crown in 
British North America.^ 

The interests that the Maritime Provinces 
then shared with the United Provinces were only 
those that arose out of the fact that all five prov- 
inces were on the same continent, and were 
under the same crown. Otherwise the United 
Provinces and the "provinces down by the 
sea" stood to each other almost in the relation 
of foreign states. 

1 Boyd, 176. 

[ 192 ] 



FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION 

Hostile customs houses guarded their frontiers. Tariffs 
Tariffs for protection in the United Provinces, ^^^j^ 
and tariffs for revenue in New Brunswick, Nova 
Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfound- 
land, choked the channels of intercolonial trade. 
There was no uniformity in banking. There 
was no common system of weights and measures; 
and there was no identity of postal service. 
The currency differed. The sovereign and the 
American dollar were legal tender in the United 
Provinces. British and American coins were 
also current in New Brunswick. In Nova 
Scotia, Peruvian, Mexican, and Columbian dollars 
were legal tender; while in Prince Edward Island 
.the complexity of current moneys and of their 
relative values was even greater.^ 

In the Gait and Carrier memorial, Bulwer Progress 
Lytton, the colonial secretary, was reminded of ^^^^^ 
these conditions. He was reminded that each North 
colony was distinct in government, customs, ^^^^^ 
industries, and legislation. 

To each other — continued the memorandum — no greater 
facilities are extended than to any foreign state, and the 
only common tie is that which binds all to the British crown. 
This state of things is considered neither promotive of the 
physical prosperity of all, nor of that moral union which 
ought to be possessed in the presence of the powerful con- 
federation of the United States. 

^ Cf. Speech by Earl of Carnarvon, H, L., February 19, 
1867. 



C 193] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



New 
Bruns- 
wick and 
Prince 
Edward 
Island 
hold aloof 



V. Dread of Annexation by the United 
States 

Gait, in his speech in the legislative assembly 
in 1858, had urged confederation to ward off 
annexation. Cartier had no admiration of Ameri- 
can political institutions. He never concealed 
his dislike of them; ^ and the attitude of Gait 
and Cartier towards the United States is ex- 
pressed in the memorandum of October 13. "It 
is in the power of the imperial government by 
sanctioning a confederation of these provinces," 
they wrote, "to constitute a dependency of the 
empire, valuable in time of peace and powerful 
in the event of war, forever removing the fear 
that these colonies may ultimately serve to 
swell the power of another nation." ^ 

The request to the colonial secretary was that 
the British government would authorize a con- 
vention of delegates from the Maritime Provinces 
and the United Provinces to consider a federative 
union — the convention to report on the prin- 
ciples on which such a union might properly be 
based. 

Only Nova Scotia and Newfoundland had 
shown any active interest in the movement in 
1857 for a union of the Maritime Provinces. 
Bulwer Lytton communicated this fact to the 
representatives of the United Provinces. "We 
think," he added, "that we should be wanting in 



1 Cf. Boyd, 356-357- 

C 194] 



2 Ibid., \77. 



FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION 



proper consideration for those governments if 
we were to authorize, without previous knowledge 
of their views, a meeting of delegates from the 
executive councils, and thus commit them to 
preliminary steps towards the settlement of a 
momentous question of which they have not yet 
signified their assent to the principle." 

The colonial secretary communicated the views 
of the United Provinces to the governments at 
Fredericton, Halifax, Charlottetown, and St. 
John's; and when Gait and Cartier returned to 
Quebec in the winter of 1858, the cabinet of the 
United Provinces also put itself in communication 
with these governments, and invited them to 
take such action as they deemed expedient. 
Nothing immediate resulted from these com- 
munications; but they gave an impetus to the 
movement, and they were the first practical steps 
in the direction of Confederation. 

The next year, 1859, the Liberals of Upper 
Canada held a convention at Toronto which was 
attended by 570 delegates. Confederation was 
discussed; but the outlook for a comprehensive 
scheme was then so unpromising that the con- 
vention decided that the most practical and 
immediate remedy for the constitutional griev- 
ances of Upper Canada was the organization of 
two local governments, and the creation of a 
joint authority to control interests common to 
Upper and Lower Canada. 

Brown, the leader of the Liberals of Upper 

C 195] 



Govern- 
ment of 
United 
Provinces 
makes 
first 
move 



A less 
am- 
bitious 
scheme 
than 
Confed- 
eration 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Canada/ formulated this plan in the session of 
the legislature of i860. He submitted two reso- 
lutions. One declared that the union of 1840 
was a failure, that it had resulted in great politi- 
cal abuses and universal dissatisfaction. The 
other called for an end to the legislative union, 
and the organization of the two provinces on the 
lines urged at the Toronto convention of Sep- 
tember, 1859. Both resolutions were defeated 
by large majorities, and in i860 no progress 
towards confederation or towards redress of the 
grievances of Upper Canada was apparent. 

^ "George Brown was loved by many people who never 
saw his face, nor heard his voice. Back in the townships, 
where the Globe carried its weekly message, he had the 
authority of a prophet. He created the Liberal party of 
Upper Canada, as Sir Wilfred Laurier has fashioned the 
Liberal party of to-day." — Sir John Willison, " Some Politi- 
cal Leaders in the Canadian Federation," in "The Federa- 
tion of Canada — 1867-1917," p. 54. 



[196] 



CHAPTER VII 

THE QUEBEC CONVENTION AND THE 
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT 

THERE was a general election in the United A 
Provinces in 1861. It resulted in the ~^"°° 
govem- 

overthrow of the Cartier-Macdonald government, ment 
But in the years from 1861 to 1864 there was ^^^^^'^ 
instability of political conditions in the United Confed- 
Provinces that was without precedent in the *"^°° 
English-speaking world. There were three gov- 
ernments in this short period; and in June, 
1864, a deadlock would have ensued had not 
Brown ^ and the Liberals supported the Tache- 
Macdonald administration in return for a guar- 
antee for the settlement of the constitutional 
difficulty. 

^ " Brown was leader of the Clear Grit party, and second 
to Macdonald (if to him) in personal influence." — Riddell, 
"Constitution of Canada," Note xxii, 49. "Dunkin, a 
member of the legislature from Broome, said that the attempt 
to overcome the deadlock by the scheme of Confederation 
reminded him of the two boys who upset the canoe. Tom 
said, 'Bill, can you pray?' Bill admitted that he could not 
think of any prayer that was suitable to the occasion. 
Tom's rejoinder, according to Dunkin, was earnest, but not 
parliamentary. He said, 'Well, something has to be done, 
and that — soon.'" — Willison, "Some Political Leaders in 
the Canadian Federation," 51. 

[ 197 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Or end A coalition government was formed, with 

legislative gj-own and two of his colleagues of the Liberal 
of 1840 party as members of the cabinet. It was a 
coalition based on a written agreement that 
(i) the government would address themselves to 
the negotiations for a confederation of the British 
North American provinces; and (2) in the event 
of failure in this undertaking, they would intro- 
duce, in the next legislative session, the federal 
principle for the United Provinces alone, "coupled 
with such provisions as would permit the Mari- 
time Provinces to be hereafter incorporated into 
the Canadian system." ^ 

It was in June, 1864, that this great forward 
step was taken. Earlier in the year the pro- 
posals of 1857 for a legislative union of the 
Maritime Provinces had been revived. The 
legislatures of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and 
Prince Edward Island passed resolutions authoriz- 
ing their governments to send representatives to 
a convention to be held at Charlottetown in 
September, 1864. Charles Tupper, at this time 
a doctor at Amherst, Nova Scotia, but from 
1864 to 1901 one of the foremost Canadian 
statesmen, was the leading spirit in the union 
movement in the Maritime Provinces.^ 



^ Mackenzie, 90. 

2 "Tupper was bold, confident, dominant. He never 
knew the call to retreat. He had courage for any combat 
and resource for any emergency. History will find and 
point out blemishes in the public career of Sir Charles 

[198] 



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT 

The Charlottetown convention met on Sep- Char- 
tember i. The government of the United °g^_°^^ 
Provinces, without waiting for an invitation, vention 
sent a delegation to Charlottetown to urge a 
confederation of all the British provinces. The 
delegation was cordially received, and the result 
was a second convention held at Quebec in 
October. 

All the provinces, including Newfoundland, Quebec 
were represented at Quebec. The convention ^^^^^^ 
was in session behind closed doors from October 
lo to October 28.^ It agreed on a federal as 
distinct from a legislative union; and from the 
historic Quebec convention, the first constitu- 
tional convention in the history of the British 
Empire, with the exception of the conventions 
that preceded the union of England and Scotland 
in 1707, were issued the famous seventy-four 
confederation resolutions. 

Tupper, but he gave the state physical vigour, intellectual 
power, and constructive energy. As for the rest, 'his great- 
ness, not his littleness, concerns mankind.'" — Willison^ 
"Some Political Leaders in the Canadian Federation," 59. 

^ Correspondents representing Canadian, British and 
American newspapers assembled at Quebec to report the 
proceedings of the convention. In answer to a memorial 
for facilities for reporting the correspondents were told, 
in a letter from the secretary, H. Bernard, that no com- 
munications of the proceedings of the convention could be 
made until the delegates were enabled definitely to report 
the issue of their deliberations to the governments of the 
respective provinces. — Joseph Pope, "Confederation Docu- 
ments," II. 

[ 199] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

These resolutions having been adopted by the 
legislatures of the United Provinces, Nova 
Scotia, and New Brunswick,^ they were embodied 
in the British North America act which was 
passed by the imperial parliament. The act 
received the royal assent on March 29, and the 
Dominion came into existence on July i, 1867. 

There are 145 sections and five schedules in 
the British North America act. The act was 
the creation of the statesmen of the British 
North American provinces, with few suggestions 
and little help from the colonial office or the 
imperial parliament. There were statesmen in 
British North America — John Alexander Mac- 
donald, in particular — who would have liked 
to give to the new confederation the title of the 
Kingdom of Canada. But Lord Derby, who was 
premier of the Conservative administration of 
1 866-1 868 that carried the act through parlia- 
ment, was careful of the susceptibilities of the 
United States, and suggested Dominion instead 
of Kingdom. 

I. American Opposition to Confederation 

In 1866-67 the acutely disturbing contention 
over the compensation demanded by the United 
States from Great Britain for the losses sustained 



^ Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island withdrew from 
the negotiations after the Quebec conference, although 
Prince Edward Island came into confederation in 1873. 

[ 200 ] 



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT 



by American shipping and trade from the 
depredations of the Alabama, a cruiser built at 
Birkenhead, for the government of the confed- 
erate states, had not been settled. There was, 
moreover, some opposition to Confederation in 
the United States, particularly at Augusta, the 
capital of Maine, and also in the senate and 
house of representatives at Washington. 

The legislature of Maine adopted, and trans- 
mitted to Washington, resolutions originating 
with the federal relations committee of the 
assembly, in which Confederation was condemned 
on the ground that it would establish monarchi- 
cal government on the North American con- 
tinent. In its alarm the legislature at Augusta 
overlooked the fact that a legislature, organized 
under the monarchical system, had existed in 
Nova Scotia for more than a century before the 
Charlottetown and Quebec conventions of 1864; 
and that in 1867 there were no fewer than five 
legislatures on the North American continent 
that were opened and closed with speeches 
from the throne. 

The preamble to the Augusta resolutions 
disclaimed any desire to accelerate the progress 
of republican principles in the British North 
American provinces. The conviction was ex- 
pressed that "repubUcan institutions should 
never be assumed by any people until the whole 
population has been inured to habits of self- 
government, and thoroughly imbued with the 

[201] 



Alann 
at 

Augusta, 
Maine 



Republi- 
can 

principles 
and 
Institu- 
tions 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



principle of implicit obedience to law, whenever 
that law is the declared will of a majority." 

The first resolution declared that "any at- 
tempt on the part of the imperial government 
of Great Britain to establish monarchical govern- 
ment in North America, or to place a vice- 
royalty, by act of parliament, over her several 
North American provinces, would be an implied 
infraction of those principles of government 
which this nation has assumed to maintain upon 
this continent," 

By the second of these resolutions the people 
of Maine, "deeply interested in the preservation 
of peace, and of friendly relations with the people 
of British North America," respectfully ap- 
pealed to the United States government "to 
interpose its legitimate influence, in friendly 
and earnest remonstrance with the British 
government, against establishing any system 
of government in North America the influence 
of which would endanger the friendly relations of 
the people of the British provinces with the 
people of the United States." 

Copies of the resolutions were transmitted 
by the governor of Maine to President Johnson, 
and to each house of congress. In the house 
of representatives,^ Banks, of Massachusetts, a 
former chairman of the committee on foreign 
afi^airs, and a soldier of much distinction in the 
civil war, called attention to the resolutions, and 
1 March 8, 1867. 

\^ 202 2 



mittee 
desired 



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT 

made a motion demanding the immediate ap- 
pointment, by the speaker, of the standing com- 
mittee on foreign affairs. Urgency was pleaded 
"in view of events transpiring on the northern 
frontier," and the need for "considering the for- 
eign relations of the United States." 

"It is not intended," said Banks, in asking a com- 
the house to adopt his motion, "to present at 
this time any protest against Confederation of 
the British provinces. The resolutions which I 
have read, from the state of Maine, were read 
merely for information. All I ask is that a 
committee shall be appointed, to which any 
instructions, in reference to this matter, may be 
given by the house." 

Blaine, of Maine — James Gillespie Blaine, "a 
afterwards secretary of state and candidate of ^^fP^"^*- 
the Republican party for the presidency m test" 
1884 — 'deprecated any action by congress, 
and reminded Banks that the matter "certainly 
could not go beyond a mere protest," "The 
resolutions of the state of Maine," Blaine added, 
"do not contemplate any positive action. They 
contemplate merely a respectful protest." 

Banks, however, was persistent. His object The per- 
was the immediate appointment of the com- pf^g^g 
mittee on foreign affairs, with an instruction 
to consider the resolutions from Augusta, and 
report to the house. "This question of Con- 
federation," he said, in answer to Blaine, "affects 
not alone the interests of the British provinces. 

[203] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

It affects our interests also; and it is certainly 
proper that its effects upon the interest of this 
country should be considered. At least we 
should have an organized committee that shall 
have power to consider its bearing upon our 
interests, whether it be for the purpose of making 
a protest or for more decided action. It is 
necessary that we should ascertain the full effect 
of this measure when consummated, and that 
it should be understood." 

Had the committee been named, Banks would 
probably have resumed the position of chairman, 
and as such would have been charged with the 
duty of drawing up the report, if the Augusta 
resolutions had been sent to the committee 
with an instruction. 

The house, however, took no action in the 
direction desired by Banks; and in the senate ^ 
an attempt made by Simon Cameron, of Penn- 
sylvania, was equally futile. Cameron was 
desirous that the committee on foreign relations 
should be instructed (i) to inquire "upon the 
facts in respect to the design of foreign powers 
to impose their systems of monarchical govern- 
ment upon the people of this continent; " and (2) 
to report "what action, if any, our government 
should take to avert the inevitable consequences 
of the further prosecution of such designs, and 
to maintain for ourselves and for our posterity 
the fundamental principles and objects of the 

^ March 9. 
[204] 



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT 



original settlers of our country and the founders 
of the republic." 

Cameron also desired that the committee 
should be "authorized and empowered to take 
such measures as they may judge expedient and 
necessary to collect and submit the facts for the 
information of the government and the people." 

Obviously the senator from Pennsylvania 
was anxious for a manifesto against Confed- 
eration. Few members of the senate shared 
Cameron's apprehensions regarding the British 
North America act; and no new duties were 
thrown upon the committee on foreign relations 
as a result of the resolution of which he gave 
notice. President Johnson, Lincoln's successor, 
did not even mention the Confederation of 
Canada in the customary survey of the foreign 
relations of the United States in his annual 
message to congress on December 3, 1867.^ 

These discussions in congress came a^fter the 
British North America bill had been introduced 
in the house of lords, but before it had been 
read a third time in the house of commons. 
They could not have influenced Derby in offer- 
ing the suggestion that the word "dominion" 
be substituted for "kingdom" in deference to 
American susceptibilities. But Derby and his 
son. Lord Stanley, who was secretary of state 
for foreign affairs, were only too well aware of 

^ Cf. Congressional Globe, March 8 and 9, 1867. James 
D. Richardson, Messages of the Presidents, VI, 558-581. 

[ 205 ] 



No men- 
tion of 
Confed- 
eration 
in 

John- 
son's 
annual 
message 



What 
influ- 
enced 
Derby 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

the extreme tension over the Alabama claims, 
and of the outbursts it was provoking in the 
Dominion United States. So were the Fathers of Con- 
of Canada fgjgj-ation who had carried the bill to London. 
They accepted the premier's suggestion made 
before the bill was introduced in the house of 
lords; ^ and when the Earl of Carnarvon, the 
colonial secretary, announced the title of the 
new Confederation to the house of lords, at 
second reading of the bill, he added, "It is a 
designation which is a graceful tribute on the 
part of the colonies to the monarchical principle 
under which they have lived and prospered, 
a principle which they trust to transmit unim- 
paired to their children's children." ^ 

II. The Attitude of Parliament, the Colonial Office, 
and the People of Great Britain towards the 

New Dominion 

ParUament There was no contention over the bill, either 
^ll^l. in the house of lords where it was introduced, or 

iintisn 

North in the house of commons. It was before the 
America j^Q^ge of lords Only four days.^ The house of 
commons spent no longer time on it.^ Additional 
schedules were added by Adderley, under- 
secretary for the colonies, when the bill was in 
committee. But only one amendment — little 

1 Cf. George M. Wrong, "The Creation of the Federal 
System in Canada," "The Federation of Canada," 22, 23. 

2 H. L. Debates, February 19, 1867. 

3 February 19, 22, 25, 26. * February 27, March 4, 7, 8. 

[206] 



act 



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT 

more than a parliamentary draftsman's amend- 
ment — was made to the bill. This was the only 
amendment made in either the lords or the 
commons to an act which in the Pickering edition 
of the British statutes extends to thirty-three 
closely printed pages. 

One member of the house of commons, Roebuck, No 
of Sheffield, regretted that the act did not create ^P'f™® 
a supreme court, with functions similar to those 
of the supreme court at Washington. Cardwell, 
who had been secretary for the colonies in the 
Whig administration of 1 859-1 866, and who 
from the front opposition bench helped Adderley 
to pilot the bill through committee, answered 
this objection. "As matters now stand," he 
said, "if the legislature acted ultra vires the 
question would first be raised in the colonial law 
courts, and would ultimately be settled by the 
privy council. No doubt it was a defect. But 
the point had undergone consideration by the 
delegates, who thought it would be better to 
leave things in this state." ^ 

1 H. C. Debates, March 4, 1867. In the early years of 
Confederation, when there were many questions at issue 
between the dominion government and the governments 
of the provinces, there was a movement at Ottawa in favor 
of the creation of a supreme court. "It is worthy of con- 
sideration," wrote Sir John Young, governor-general from 
1868 to 1869, to the Earl of Granville, then secretary of state 
for the colonies, "whether it would not be expedient to 
establish a tribunal with powers analogous to those of the 
supreme court of the United States, for the decision of all 

[207] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Viscount Monck had succeeded Head in 1866 
as governor-general. Monck, like Head, did 
all that was constitutionally possible to forward 
Confederation, and he has a distinguished place 
in Canadian history for his services in the crisis 
of 1 864-1 867. But the task of framing the 
resolutions on which the British North America 
act was based — the task so successfully per- 
formed at Quebec in October, 1864 — was 
achieved by the thirty-three men who in Canada 
today are always spoken of with veneration as 
the Fathers of Confederation.^ 

There was no steering of the Quebec conven- 
tion by any representative of the colonial office. 
About this time an act was passed by the imperial 
parliament empowering all legislatures in colonies 
with representative and responsible government 
to amend their constitutions as they deemed 
expedient. At Westminster, Confederation was 
regarded as a matter which concerned the British 
North American provinces. Consequently the 

questions of constitutional law and conflict of jurisdiction." 
"I see no reason," wrote Granville, on May 8, 1869, "for the 
establishment of such a tribunal. Any question of this kind 
could be entertained and decided by the local courts, subject 
to an appeal to the judicial committee of the privy council; 
and it does not appear in what respect this mode of determi- 
nation is likely to be inadequate or unsatisfactory." — Ses- 
sional papers of Canada, 1870, No. 35, 4-5. 

^ A complete list of the Fathers of Confederation, with the 
names of the provinces they represented at the Quebec con- 
vention, is given on pages 121-22 of Audet's "Canadian His- 
torical Dates and Events." 

[2083 



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT 



Fathers of Confederation were given a free hand. 
Their mission at Quebec was to agree on a plan 
which would bring the provinces into union, and 
they went about their great task with the confi- 
dent feeling that their plan would be promptly 
accepted by the colonial office and by parliament 
at Westminster. 

At the Quebec convention the United Provinces 
were represented by twelve delegates; Nova 
Scotia by five; New Brunswick by seven; Prince 
Edward Island by seven; and Newfoundland by 
two. Of these thirty-three delegates, the men 
who achieved greatest distinction from their 
part in bringing about Confederation, and from 
their subsequent careers in the political life of 
the Dominion, were Alexander Tulloch Gait, 
George Brown, John Alexander Macdonald, and 
Oliver Mowat, of Ontario; George Etienne 
Cartier and Thomas Darcy McGee, of Quebec; 
Charles Tupper, of Nova Scotia; and Samuel 
Leonard Tilley, of New Brunswick. 

England watched with appreciative interest 
the conventions in Charlottetown and Quebec 
which led up to Confederation. At Westminster 
the British North America bill aroused no party 
controversies. At this time the people of the 
United Kingdom were engrossed by the fortunes 
of the bill of the Derby government extending 
the parliamentary franchise in the boroughs, 
— the first extension of the electoral franchise 
, since 1832, — and, moreover, in 1867 the era of 

[209] 



Fathers 
of 

Confed- 
eration 
who rank 
as states- 
men 
of the 
Dominion 



No party 
contro- 
versy 
over 
B. N. A. 
act at 
West- 
minster 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

popular indifference to oversea possessions had 
not yet come to an end. 

The popular attitude towards Confederation 
was well expressed by the Times, in its survey 
of the year. "India and the colonies," reads a 
paragraph in this survey, "have enjoyed an 
unbroken tranquillity. The British provinces of 
North America have formally assumed the title 
of the Dominion of Canada, and the experiment 
of confederation or union promises favorably. 
The colonial office, once the most onerous depart- 
ment in the imperial government, is now, in 
great measure, relieved of its legislative and 
administrative functions." ^ 

How the creation of the Dominion was regarded 
by the Derby-Disraeli government may be 
judged from the queen's speech at the end of 
the session of the imperial parliament of 1867. 
"The act for the union of the British North 
American provinces," it read, "is the final 
accomplishment of a scheme long contemplated, 
whereby these colonies, now combined in the 
Dominion, may be expected not only to gain 
additional strength for the purposes of defense 
against external aggression, but may be united 
among themselves by fresh ties of mutual interest, 
and attached to the mother-country by the only 
bonds which can effectually secure important 
dependencies, those of loyalty to the crown and 
attachment to the British connection." ^ 

^ Annual Summaries Reprinted from the Times, I, 266. 
2 H. L. Debates, August 21, 1867. 

[210] 



c 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE DOMINION A FEDERAL 
UNION 

ONFEDERATION involved quite impor- changes 
tant changes in political organization for ^yy^^ 
the provinces which came under the terms of the organ- 
British North America act — Ontario, Quebec, ^^^^ 
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward 
Island, and British Columbia. These changes 
were necessary because each province had thence- 
forward to elect two groups of parliamentary 
representatives; one for the Dominion house of 
commons, and the other for the provincial legisla- 
ture; and also because each of the provinces at 
Confederation ceded some of its powers to the 
Dominion government. 

After Confederation the relations of the colonial Colonial 
office in London were only with the government ^^® 
at Ottawa, and not with the five provincial changes 
capitals, as in the period from 1846 to 1867. ^*^jjg^_ 
Except for this fact, and for the fact that after eration 
1878 an end was made in practice to the reserva- 
tion of bills by the governor-general,^ it cannot be 
said that there was any change in the relations 
between the government in Canada and the im- 
perial government at Westminster. 

1 Cf. Z. A. Lash, "The Working of Federal Institutions 
in Canada." — "The Federation of Canada," 80-85. 

[211] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Few new Powcr was given in the British North America 
powers ^^^ ^^ ^Pjg Dominion parliament to create new 

accrue to '^ 

Dominion provinces out of the territories lying between the 
Great Lakes and the Rocky Mountains — a 
power which was exercised in 1870, when Mani- 
toba was organized as a province/ and again in 
1905 when Saskatchewan and Alberta were 
created. Otherwise it cannot be said that any 
additional freedom or any important new powers 
accrued to Canada at Confederation. 

In the period between 1841 and 1867, as has 
been shown in the preceding pages, the govern- 
ment at Whitehall had, sometimes promptly 
and cordially, sometimes tardily and grudgingly, 
conceded everything that had been asked by the 
United Provinces and the Maritime Provinces. 
It had conceded so much, and had obtained so 
little in return, that in September, 1866, when 
the Derby government was faced with the 
problem of the defense of the British North 
American provinces, Disraeli, who was then 
chancellor of the exchequer, deemed that the 
time had come for reconsidering the position 
of the British government in relation to these 
outlying portions of the empire. "We must," 
he wrote to Derby, "consider our Canadian 
position, which is most illegitimate. An army 

^ Note also an act respecting the establishment of prov- 
inces in the Dominion of Canada, which received the royal 
assent on June 29, 1871. — British Statutes, 34 and 35 Vict., 
c. 78. 

[212] 



THE DOMINION A FEDERAL UNION 



maintained in a country which does not permit 
us even to govern it! What an anomaly!" ^ 

Long before Confederation the British North 
American provinces had secured nearly all the es- 
sentials of autonomy. They had obtained nearly 
all the powers they could ask or expect, if they 
were to remain of the British Empire and under 
the British crown. They all enjoyed representa- 
tive and responsible government. Each since 1859 
had been almost completely m-aster of its own 
fiscal system, although only Ontario and Quebec 
had used this power to levy protective duties on 
imports from the United Kingdom. All, except 
British Columbia, had enjoyed the right of 
reciprocal trade with the United States, and had 
received from the United States, in return for 
adequate concessions made by the United Prov- 
inces and the Maritime Provinces, tariff con- 
cessions which were denied by the United States 
to Great Britain. 

The imperial government in 1850-1854 had 
greatly exerted itself through its minister at 
Washington, and through Elgin, the governor- 
general, to secure reciprocal trade between the 
United States and the United Provinces, the 
Maritime Provinces, and Newfoundland. But 
the terms and conditions of the treaty were left 
to the statesmen of the provinces to determine 
as seemed best for the interests of the provinces; 
and so far as the British government was con- 



Auton- 
omy of 
provinces 
before 
Confed- 
eration 



Paitlal 
treaty- 
making 
power 
exercised 
by 

provinces 
in 1864 



Buckle, IV, 476. 



[213] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Powers 

accruing 

to 

Dominion 

from 

1867 to 

1914 



cerned the treaty might have been continued 
indefinitely so long as the British provinces found 
reciprocity to their advantage, as they un- 
doubtedly did from 1854 to i866> 

All the provinces before Confederation pos- 
sessed the power to amend their constitutions as 
their legislatures might deem advisable. Before 
Confederation there had also been far-reaching 
modifications of the instructions given to 
governors-general and governors on their appoint- 
ment to the capitals of the provinces. These 
modifications were necessary owing to the large 
measure of home rule enjoyed by all the provinces 
between 1841 and 1867. 

The classes of bills that might be reserved for 
transmission to the colonial ofiice before approval 
by the governor-general, or the governors of 
British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, 
and Prince Edward Island, had, in consequence 
of the larger measure of home rule, also been 
much restricted, thereby increasing the powers 
of the legislatures and the authority of the 
cabinets. There were, therefore, few new powers 
to be asked from the imperial government by 
the Fathers of Confederation. 

The fullness of the concessions to the old 
British North American provinces was made 
obvious by half a century's experience of the 
working of the British North America act. 

1 Cf. Porritt, "Sixty Years of Protection in Canada," 
79-118. 

[214] 



THE DOMINION A FEDERAL UNION 

From 1867 to the outbreak of the war In 1914, 
the imperial government was even more ready 
to make concessions than it had been from 1840 
to Confederation. The growth and development 
of Canada created new needs, needs which had 
not existed when there were not more than 
two or three million people in all the British 
North American provinces. But in these forty- 
seven years — 1867 to 1914 — the Dominion 
had sought, had had bestowed on her, or had 
asserted, only six rights or powers which had not 
been enjoyed by the United Provinces and the 
Maritime Provinces between 1859 and 1867. 

The rights thus obtained by the Dominion Treaty- 
between 1867 and 19 14 were (i) the right to ™^^^8 
make her own tidewater coastwise navigation fuUy 
laws — a right first exercised in 1870;^ (2) the ^°°^^ 
right of the Dominion cabinet to veto a nomina- in i907 
tlon to the office of governor-general — a right 
that has existed at least since 1882^; (3) the right 
of the Dominion to direct representation on the 
judicial committee of the privy council at White- 
hall — a right first exercised in 1897, when Sir 
Henry Strong, then chief justice of Canada, took 
his seat on the judicial committee; (4) the right 
of the Dominion to decide whether It will be a 
party to treaties made by Great Britain, a right 

1 The United Provinces were conceded the right to make 
their own inland coastwise navigation laws in 1847. 

2 Cf. Bruce, II, 205. 

[215] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

enjoyed since 1872; ^ (5) the right of the Dominion 
to make her own immigration laws, and to exclude 
paupers and other undesirables from the United 
Kingdom or elsewhere in the British Empire — 
a right first asserted and exercised in 1904; and 
(6) the right of the Dominion to appoint her own 
plenipotentiaries for the negotiation of commercial 
treaties and conventions — a right partially 
conceded as early as 1870, and fully conceded by 
the imperial government in 1907.^ 



I. The Cost and Advantages of Federal Union 

Mac- The British North America act of 1867 estab- 

*"i ^ lished a federal as distinct from a legislative 

prefer- _ ° 

ence for uuion. Macdouald, one of the Fathers of Con- 
J^^*"*''® federation, who was the first premier of the 

1 At the present time the British government never nego- 
tiates a treaty without putting in a stipulation that this 
treaty does not apply to Canada, or any of the self-governing 
dominions, unless they are willing to be bound by it. — Speech 
by Sir Wilfred Laurier at Simcoe, Ontario, August 15, 191 1. 

2 It may be briefly noted that growing out of the war, and 
out of the prompt and self-sacrificing part that Canada and 
the other oversea dominions took in the defense of the empire 
and of civilization, the Dominion of Canada, the Common- 
wealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the 
Union of South Africa were in 1916 claiming a part in formu- 
lating the foreign policy of the empire. (Cf. ^arterly Re- 
view, July, 19 16, 266-282.) It was urged that foreign policy 
and imperial defense must no longer be determined by the 
cabinet which is chosen only from the British parliament, 
and maintained in power by a majority in the house of 
commons at Westminster. 

[216] 



THE DOMINION A FEDERAL UNION 

Dominion, would have preferred a legislative 
union; ^ and Macdonald did not lack support for 
this preference in the legislature of the United 
Provinces. Most of the advocates of legislative 
union urged it on the ground of economy. 

Had such a union been possible, economy case 
might have resulted; for with nine provincial *°''* 
legislatures, and as many provincial capitals and lative 
governments, in addition to the Dominion par- "°*''° 
liament, the Dominion government, and the 
Dominion capital, Canada, on the basis of its 
population and its normal expenditures on de- 
fence, is the most expensively governed country 
in the English-speaking world. 

A legislative union might have greatly hin- Eastern 
dered the development of political civilization in *°*^ 

• rT\,r-i ni Western 

the newer provmces or Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Canada 
and Alberta. East and west are even more 
accentuated in Canada — the difference is more 
obvious — than in the United States. As regards 
political thought and tendencies, a Canadian 
from any one of the four provinces east of the 
Ottawa River enters into another world when he 
crosses the "Bridge," and settles in rural Mani- 
toba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta. 

^ "Federalism in 1861 had received a staggering blow 
by the apparent breakdown of the American union and the 
beginning of the civil war. This breakdown so impressed 
the mind of Macdonald that he despaired of Federalism, 
and had fixed his attention on a unitary system like that 
of the United Kingdom." — George M. Wrong, "The Crea- 
tion of the Federal System in Canada," 14-15. 

[217] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

PecuUar A legislative union with a house of commons 
needs of ^^^ senate, controlled by majorities from the 
provinces five provinces east of the Great Lakes, would have 
been a perpetual brake on the three prairie 
provinces. It would have been a hindrance for 
these provinces, on which in the second decade 
of the twentieth century the material prosperity 
of all Canada largely depended.^ 

During their rapid development from 1905 to 
1914, the prairie provinces acted on the convic- 
tion that taxation and police are not the only 
me^^^™' functions of government. They developed poli- 
cies in regard to public utilities — grain elevators, 
street-car lines, telephone systems, and water, 
light, and power undertakings — more in accord 
with English and Scottish precedents than with 
the precedents of eastern Canada or of the United 
States. 

Federal union has been costly and is still 
costly to Canada, in view of its enormous area 
Its cost to and its comparatively small and scattered popu- 
^^^ lation. Federal union has its inconveniences 
arising from some of the direct methods of taxa- 
tion in use in the various provinces, and the 
lack of uniformity as regards bankruptcy, usury, 
and other laws directly affecting commerce. But 

^ "The creation of western Canada is the most splendid 
achievement of our life since 1867. The hope of that great 
lone land has been realized beyond expectation." — R. A. Fal- 
coner (president of the University of Toronto), "The Quality 
of Canadian Life," in "The Federation of Canada," 120. 

[218] 



THE DOMINION A FEDERAL UNION 



no student of the political and economic and 
social development of Canada since 1867 — no 
student who can survey the various needs and 
economic and social characteristics of the nine 
provinces of the Dominion — will deny that 
federal union has been, and is, worth all that 
it has cost, that it is costing, and that it will 
cost. Nor will he desire that Macdonald had 
carried a union on the lines of his first plan and 
wishes. 

A legislative union might today be possible 
for the prairie provinces, with little interference 
with the federal system. A legislative union, 
it has long been contended, is possible for the 
Maritime Provinces, and such a union might be 
much to their advantage. But experience from 
1841 to 1867, and from 1867 to the jubilee year 
of Confederation, has shown that a legislative 
union was never desirable for the Dominion.^ 

^ In the Mail of Toronto, of January 6, 1880, there was 
a review of twelve j^ears' working of the system of govern- 
ment that was established in 1867. "The local system," 
it read, "has been in existence only twelve years. During 
that time it has, on the whole, worked well. Certainly it 
will not be contended that the business of the province of 
Ontario would have been transacted as well or more cheaply 
by a legislative union. The bitter experiences of the politi- 
cal vendetta that rent Upper and Lower Canada, and made 
the union of 1841 a grim satire on unity, ought to satisfy 
every thinking man that such a form of government is not 
suited for a country of mixed races. It is tolerably certain, 
indeed, that if one parliament had to deal with the local as 
well as the general interests of the seven provinces, the work 

[219] 



Le^sla- 
tive 

unions in 
Canada 
that are 
possible 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

II. The Forces against a Legislative Union 

However desirable legislative union might have 
seemed to the advocates of economy, it was a 
plan which in 1 864-1 867 could never have been 
carried. Quebec would hear of nothing but a 
federal union. The attitude of the Maritime 
Provinces was the same as that of Quebec. More- 
over, much as British Columbia desired railway 
and telegraph lines from the Atlantic to the 
Pacific — public utilities of supreme importance 
politically, economically, and socially, which it 
could obtain only by union with eastern Canada 
— its political history from 1850 to 1867 warrants 
the assumption that the Pacific coast province, 
with its almost exclusively English population, 
and its dread of some of the political, racial, 
and religious conditions that had developed and 
become rooted in Ontario and Quebec, might 
have long held aloof if a legislative union had been 
established in 1867. 

George Brown, leader of the Liberal party of 
Upper Canada, told the advocates of legislative 
union why such a plan was not possible, when he 
addressed the legislative assembly of the United 
Provinces and asked it to indorse the resolutions 
of the Quebec convention of October, 1864. 
"We had," he said, in recalling the deliberations 

would be badly done, if done at all, and the sectionalism 
that now curses us would become an intolerable drag on 
progress and a perpetual danger to the state." 

[ 220 ] 



THE DOMINION A FEDERAL UNION 



of the convention, "to take federal union or drop 
the negotiations. Not only were our friends 
from Lower Canada against legislative union, 
but so were most of the delegates from the Mari- 
time Provinces. There was but one choice open 
to us — federal union or nothing." ^ 

At Westminster there were tried and sincere 
friends of self-government in the colonies that 
are now of the Dominions who in 1867 would have 
preferred a legislative union for the Dominion 
of Canada. Foremost among them was Russell 
— Lord John Russell of the act of union of 1840. 
Carnarvon had these advocates of legislative 
union in mind when, in introducing the British 
North America bill to the house of lords, he came 
to the clause establishing federal union. 

It is true — said the colonial secretary of the Derby- 
Disraeli administration of 1866-1868 — that no federation 
can be as compact as a single homogeneous state, though the 
compactness will vary with the strength or weakness of the 
central government. It is true that federation may be com- 
paratively a loose bond, but the alternative is no bond at 
all. Federation is only possible under certain conditions, 
when the states to be federated are so far akin that they 
can be united, and yet so far dissimilar that they cannot 
be fused into one single body politic; and this I believe to 
be the present conditions of the provinces of British North 
America. 



Russell's 
prefer- 
ence for 
federal 
union 



Carnar- 
von 
on 

federal 
bond 



Carnarvon realized that there might be diffi- Crown 
culties even with federal union. But he believed ^f . 

federal 

that the Dominion of Canada enjoyed one con- union 



^ Mackenzie, 335, 336. 



[221 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

splcuous advantage lacking in confederations in 
non-British countries. "It is to be remembered," 
he said, "that unHke every other federation that 
has existed, the federation of British North Ameri- 
can provinces derives its poHtical existence from 
an external authority. It derives it from that 
which is the recognized source of power and rights 
— the British crown." "And I cannot but recog- 
nize in this," Carnarvon added, "some security 
against those conflicts of state rights and central 
authority which in other federations have some- 
times proved so disastrous." ^ 

1 H. L. Debates, February 19, 1867. 



[222 J 



CHAPTER IX 

THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 

BETWEEN THE DOMINION AND 

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS 



T 



HE success of the United States under the Lessons 
federal system stimulated the first stages ^^ 
of the movement in the United Provinces for a war of 
union of all the British North American prov- Jf^g" 
inces. But as the movement was gradually 
pushed forward — as confederation of all the 
provinces, or a federal union of Upper and Lower 
Canada, was coming into sight — disturbing 
conditions developed in the United States which 
brought about the civil war of 1 861-1865. 

The Fathers of Confederation noted these 
ominous conditions, and realized that they must 
establish a federal union with a constitution that 
would reduce to a minimum the likelihood of 
serious friction between the central government 
and the various provincial governments. 

In the session of the legislature of the United Avoiding 
Provinces of i860 — soon after the mission of ^'^^^'^ 

over 

Gait and Carrier to London in the interest of provincial 
confederation — John A. Macdonald made a ^^^^^ 
speech in the assembly in which he insisted that 
in the constitution for the British provinces some 
dangers which he regarded as inherent in the 
constitution of the United States must be avoided. 

[223] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Hat- "The fatal error which they have committed," 

onception ^^ Said, in alluding to the struggle over states' 
>t rights, "and it was perhaps unavoidable from the 

Lmerican g^-^^g gf ^.j^g American colonies at the time of the 

onstl- 

ution revolution, was in making each state a distinct 
sovereignty. The fatal error was made in giving 
to each state distinct sovereign power, except 
in those instances where powers were specially 
reserved by the constitution, and conferred 
upon the general government." 

"The true principle of confederation," continued 
the statesman of the United Provinces, who in 
1867 was created Knight Commander of the 
Bath for his services at Confederation, "lies in 
giving to the general government all the principles 
and powers of sovereignty, and in the provision 
that the subordinate or individual states should 
have no powers but those expressly bestowed on 
them. We should thus have a powerful central 
government, a powerful central legislature, and 
a powerful decentralized system of minor legis- 
latures for local purposes." ^ 

The principles of distribution of powers between 

the Dominion and the provincial governments 

ition of which Macdonald thus enunciated in i860 were 

tetes reiterated by him at the Quebec convention of 

rred 1 864. He recalled political conditions in the 

recently revolted American colonies at the time 

when the constitution of the United States was 

framed. 

1 Boyd, 181-182. 
[224] 



THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 

"There were," he said, "thirteen individual 
sovereignties, quite distinct the one from the 
other. The error at the formation of these con- 
stitutions was that each state reserved to itself 
all sovereign rights, save small portions dele- 
gated. We must reverse the decision by strength- 
ening the general government, and conferring on 
the provincial bodies only such powers as may be 
required for local purposes." ^ 

The principles which Macdonald had thus 
twice enunciated were adopted at Quebec.^ It 

1 "The framers of the constitution of Canada," wrote ex- 
President Taft, in the National Geographic Magazine, Wash- 
ington, March, 1916, "thought it an improvement on the 
constitution of the United States in that the defects which the 
constitution of the United States was supposed to have shown 
in the civil war were corrected." Mr. Taft quoted Mac- 
donald's speech at Quebec. "I think," he continued, "it 
is the general opinion now that this view of the constitution 
of the United States was a mistaken one. The adoption of 
the 13th, 14th, and isth amendments strengthened somewhat 
the restraint upon state legislatures enforceable in the supreme 
court of the United States, but generally the division of power 
between the states and the general government remained the 
same. And yet as our congress has exercised powers which 
she always had, but which she had not before exercised, 
the strength of the central government is seen to be quite 
all that it ought to be. There is danger that a great widening 
of the field of federal activity, and a substantial diminution of 
state rights, would in the end threaten the integrity of our 
union instead of promoting it." 

^ "Canada is a single state, in which the various units 
have prescribed powers: the United States is a union of many 
states, which have agreed to delegate certain powers to a 

[225] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



convention 

accepts 

Mac- 

lonald's 

rtews 



was agreed that in the division of powers between 
the Dominion and the provincial governments the 
residuum should be in the Dominion government, 
and not be reserved either to the provinces or to 
the people, as in the constitution of the United 
States.^ 

The plan was apparently adopted without 
contention; for Tupper, in his recollections of 
the convention, writes that there was "a wonder- 
3f powers jpyj accord among the various representatives in 
regard to general principles involved in drafting 
a basis of union." ^ This unanimity was eulogized 
by Adderley, under-secretary for the colonies, 
when the British North America bill was before 
the house of commons at Westminster.^ 



I. The Powers of the Dominion Parliament 

Carnarvon, in introducing the bill to the house 
of lords, characterized the clauses which effected 
the distribution of powers as "the most delicate 
and important part of the measure." "In this," 
he said, "I think is comprised the main theory 
and constitution of federal government. On 
this depends the practical working of the new 
scheme." 

central authority." — George M. Wrong, "The Creation 
of the Federal System in Canada," 24. 

1 Cf. Taft, "Great Britain's Bread upon the Waters," 
National Geographic Magazine, March, 1916, 232. 

"^ Tupper, "Recollections of Sixty Years," 40. 

3 Cf. H. C. Debates, February 27, 1867. 

[226] 



THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 

And here — Carnarvon continued — we navigate a sea of 
difficulties. There are rocks on the right hand, and on the left. 
If, on the one hand, the central government be too strong, 
then there is risk that it may absorb the local action and that 
wholesome self-government by the provincial bodies which it 
is a matter of both good faith and political expediency to 
maintain. If, on the other hand, the central government is 
not strong enough, there arises a conflict of states' rights and 
pretensions. Cohesion is destroyed, and the effective vigor 
of central authority is encroached upon. 

Familiarity with Macdonald's enunciation of Munici- 

1860 and 1864 of the principles on which he desired ?.fV 

that the federal union should be based is obvious for 

in Carnarvon's next remarks on the distribution p^°^^<=^^ 
of powers effected by the bill. 

The real object we have in view — he said — is to give to 
the central government those high functions and almost 
sovereign powers by which general principles and uniformity 
of legislation may be secured in those questions that are of 
common import to all the provinces, and at the same time 
retain for each province so ample a measure of municipal 
liberty and self-government as will allow them, and indeed 
compel them, to exercise those local powers which they can 
exercise with great advantage to the community. 

Carnarvon made no claim as to the general Claims 
superiority of the constitution of the Dominion °* _, 

• • /• 1 TT • 1 superi- 

over the constitution of the United States. Such ority over 
a claim was left to the advocates of the new con- A™^^<=an 

consti- 

stitution in the legislatures of the several British tution 
North American provinces. ^ But in one particu- 
lar he was confident that the constitution was 
superior to that of the United States. 
1 Cf. Mackenzie, 309; Boyd, 225. 

[227] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

To the central parliament — he said, when explaining 
the clause of the bill dealing with the criminal code and the 
administration of criminal law — will be assigned the enact- 
ment of criminal law. The administration of it, indeed, is 
vested in the local authorities; but the power of general 
legislation is very properly reserved for the central parliament. 
And in this, I cannot but note a wise departure from the 
system pursued in the United States, where each state is 
competent to deal, as it may please, with its criminal code, 
and where an offense may be visited with one penalty in the 
state of New York, and with another in the state of Virginia. 
The system proposed is, I believe, a better and a safer one.^ 

The division of powers made by the British 
North America act is effected by a distinct 
classification into four divisions. In the first 
division are those subjects which are assigned 
exclusively to the Dominion parliament. In the 
second are those which are assigned exclusively 
to the provincial legislatures. In the third are 
the subjects of concurrent legislation, such as 
immigration and agriculture; and the fourth com- 
prises the subject of education. 

The section of the act assigning subjects to 
the Dominion parliament declares that it shall 
be lawful for the sovereign, "by and with the 
advice and consent of the senate and the house of 
commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and 
good government of Canada, in relation to all 
matters not coming within the classes of subjects 
by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures 
of the provinces." "And for greater certainty," 



H. L. Debates,- February 19, 1867. 



[228] 



THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 

it continues, "but not so as to restrict the gener- 
ality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is 
hereby declared, notwithstanding anything in 
this act, that the exclusive legislative authority 
of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters 
coming within the classes of subjects next here- 
inafter enumerated." 

Twenty-nine subjects are enumerated. They 
are as follows: 

1. The public debt and property. 

2. The regulation of trade and commerce. 

3. The raising of money by any mode or system 
of taxation. 

4. The borrowing of money on the public 
credit. 

5. Postal service. 

6. The census and statistics. 

7. Militia, military and naval service, and 
defense. 

8. The fixing of and providing for the salaries 
and allowances of civil and other officers of the 
government of Canada. 

9. Beacons, buoys, lighthouses, and Sable 
Island. 

10. Navigation and shipping. 

11. Quarantine, and the establishment and 
maintenance of marine hospitals. 

12. Seacoast and inland fisheries. 

13. Ferries between a province and any British 
or foreign country, or between two provinces. 

14. Currency and coinage. 

L 229 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

15. Banking, incorporation of banks, and the 
issue of paper money. 

16. Savings banks. 

17. Weights and measures. 

18. Bills of exchange and promissory notes. 

19. Interest. 

20. Legal tender. 

21. Bankruptcy and insolvency. 

22. Patents of invention and discovery. 

23. Copyrights. 

24. Indians and lands reserved for the Indians. 

25. Naturalization and aliens. 

26. Marriage and divorce. 

27. The criminal law, except the constitution 
of courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including 
the procedure in criminal matters. 

28. The establishment, maintenance, and man- 
agement of penitentiaries, 

29. Such classes of subjects as are expressly 
excepted in the enumeration of the classes of 
subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the 
legislatures of the provinces. 

"And any matters coming within any of the 
classes of subjects enumerated in this section," 
reads the paragraph following the foregoing 
enumeration, "shall not be deemed to come 
within the class of matters of a local or private 
nature comprised in the enumeration of the classes 
of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the 
legislatures of the provinces." 

[230] 



THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 

11. Powers of the Provincial Legislatures 

The second of the four divisions — the divisions Division 
in which are set out the subjects assigned to the 
provincial legislatures — is prefaced by a declara- 
tion that "in each province the legislature may 
exclusively make laws in relation to matters 
coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter 
enumerated." They are as follows: 

1. The amendment from time to time, notwith- 
standing anything in this act, of the constitution 
of the province, except as regards the office 
of the lieutenant-governor. 

2. Direct taxation within the province, in 
order to the raising of a revenue for provincial 
purposes. 

3. The borrowing of money on the sole credit 
of the province. 

4. The establishment and tenure of provincial 
offices, and the appointment and payment of 
provincial officers. 

5. The management and sale of the public 
lands belonging to the province, and of the 
timber and wood thereon. 

6. The establishment, maintenance, and man- 
agement of public and reformatory prisons in 
and for the province. 

7. The establishment, maintenance, and man- 
agement of hospitals, asylums, charities, and 
eleemosynary institutions in and for the prov- 
inces, other than marine hospitals. 

C231] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

80 Municipal institutions in the province. 

9. Shop, saloon, tavern, and other licenses, 
in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial, 
local, or municipal purposes. 

10. Local works and undertakings, other than 
such as are of the following classes: 

(a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways, 
canals, telegraphs, and other works and under- 
takings connecting the province with any other 
or others of the provinces, or extending beyond 
the limits of the province; 

(b) Lines of steamships between the province 
and any British or foreign country; 

(c) Such works as, although wholly situate 
within the province, are before, or after their 
execution, declared by the parliament of Canada 
to be for the general advantage of Canada, or 
for the advantage of two or more of the prov- 
inces. 

11. The incorporation of companies with pro- 
vincial objects. 

12. Solemnization of marriage in the province. 

13. Property and civil rights in the province. 

14. The administration of justice in the prov- 
ince, including the constitution, maintenance, 
and organization of provincial courts, both of 
civil and criminal jurisdiction, and including 
procedure in civil matters in these courts. 

15. The imposition of punishment by fine, 
penalty, or imprisonment, for enforcing any law 
of the province made with relation to any matter 

[232] 



THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 

coming within any of the classes of subjects 
enumerated in this section. 

1 6. Generally all matters of a merely local or 
private nature in the province. 

III. Concurrent Legislation 

The third division — concurrent legislation — Division 
needs a few words of explanation. Long before ™ 
Confederation, Upper and Lower Canada, Nova 
Scotia, New Brunswick, and British Columbia 
had possessed, as they still do in 191 8, large 
areas of crown lands. In each of these provinces, 
moreover, laws had been enacted to encourage 
immigration from the United Kingdom with a 
view to the settlement of these crown lands. 
None of the provinces parted with the control 
of their crown lands when they entered the 
federal union. 

At Confederation the Dominion was possessed Grown 
of no crown lands that were available for colo- ^^^ 
nization on a large scale. Its only public lands 
in 1867 were military and naval reservations, 
which, at Confederation, were ceded by the im- 
perial government. The Dominion government 
remained without so much as a quarter section of 
160 acres to offer to immigrants until it acquired 
the Hudson Bay Company's territory in 1869, 
and parts of these vast areas were surveyed and 
parceled out for settlement. 

It was these conditions as regards crown lands, 
and also the fact that each of the provinces 

[233] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Agri- desired, after Confederation, to continue its own 
cultural agricultural policy, that resulted in the third 

poUciesof ,. . . . V J- -I • r ff- J 

provinces division in the distribution or powers enected 

by the British North America act. 
immi- There is only one section in this third division. 

ajj^ In each province — it reads — the legislature may make 

agriculture laws in relation to agriculture in the province, and to immi- 
gration into the province. And it is hereby declared that the 
parliament of Canada may, from time to time, make laws 
in relation to agriculture in all or any of the provinces, and 
to immigration into all or any of the provinces; and any 
law of the legislature of a province, relative to agriculture, 
or to immigration, shall have effect in and for the province 
as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any act of the 
parliament of Canada. 

Except that the legislature of British Columbia 
has frequently passed bills restricting Chinese 
immigration into the province — bills that did 
not become law because they were disallowed by 
the government at Ottawa^ — the provincial 
legislatures after Confederation, ceased to pass 
laws regulating immigration. 

The Dominion code, administered by the 
department of immigration and colonization at 
Ottawa, has long been the only law. Dominion 

^ "By virtue of sections 56 and 90 of the British North 
America act, an authentic copy of every provincial act has 
to be sent to the governor-general; and if the governor- 
general in council, within one year after receipt thereof, 
think fit to disallow the act, such disallowance, being signi- 
fied by the governor-general in the manner prescribed, shall 
annul the act from and after the day of such signification." — 
Lefroy, "Canada's Federal System," 81. 

[ 234 ] 



THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 

or provincial, regulating immigration. But in immi- 
recent years all the provinces except Prince ^^"•"' 

. . . . propa- 

Edward Island, and the prairie provinces, which gandaby 
have no lands at their disposition for settlement,^ provincial 

. . . . govem- 

have, under the concurrent legislative provision ments 
of the British North America act, enacted laws 
under which immigration propaganda is con- 
ducted in the United Kingdom, and in the case 
of Ontario and Quebec, also in the United States. 
The propaganda of these provinces, which is 
distinct from the propaganda of the Dominion 
government, on which fourteen million dollars 
were expended in the years from 1897 to 1914,^ 
is in the interest of the province which embarks 
on it. It advertises the special attractions which 
the province offers to immigrants. The aim 
of the wider propaganda, long maintained by the 
government at Ottawa, is to attract immigration 
to the Dominion as a whole, and in particular to 
divert a stream of agrarian immigration to the 
unoccupied Dominion crown lands in the grain- 
growing provinces west of the Great Lakes. 

IV. The Legislatures; Parliament and the Cabinet; 
Education 

The fourth division in the distribution of powers Division 
— the division concerned with education and the ^ 
powers of the Dominion and provincial govern- 

^ Crown lands in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta 
are under the control of the Dominion government. 

* Cf. " Immigration Facts and Figures, Ottawa," 19 15, 30. 

[235] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

ments in regard to it — gave the Fathers of 
Confederation more trouble than almost any other 
provision embodied in the resolutions on which 
the British North America act was based. The 
difficulty arose out of the system of sectarian 
schools established in Upper Canada under an 
act of the legislature of the United Provinces 
passed in 1863, 

The school system then established created 
for Upper Canada what have since been known 
as separate schools — schools for Roman Catho- 
lics and schools for Protestants, all supported 
by local taxation, and under the management of 
local representatives, with some supervision 
from the department of education of the province. 
In the Catholic schools distinctly Catholic 
teaching is given; in the Protestant schools there 
is no teaching of the beliefs or tenets of any 
denomination. 

The great majority of the people of Upper 
Canada did not desire separate schools. A com- 
mon school system, with schools attended by 
children of all religions, was the aim of the Protes- 
tant population of Upper Canada in the years of 
the legislative union. But in the era of the 
United Provinces, as today, there were areas 
in Upper Canada, now Ontario, in which there 
were large settlements of French-Canadians, 
and areas settled by immigrants from Ireland. 

French-Canadians in the legislature, before 
1863, had insisted on separate schools for Lower 

[236] 



THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 



Canada; and in the interests of the Roman 
Cathohcs — French-Canadian and Irish — they 
also insisted, from 1849 to 1863, that there should 
be a separate school system in Upper Canada. 

Fourteen years of bitter sectarian contro- 
versy, years in which the Roman Catholics in 
Upper Canada made the separate school question 
the paramount issue in politics,^ culminated 
in the education act of 1863. It was accepted 
by the Roman Catholic hierarchy as a settle- 
ment — a settlement which relieved the Protes- 
tants of Upper Canada from "standing constantly 
to arms," as George Brown, leader of the Liberals, 
described the position, "awaiting fresh attacks 
upon our school system," as they had been com- 
pelled to do in the years from 1849 to 1863. 

On the eve of Confederation there were 4,000 
common schools in Upper Canada. Of this 
number 100 were separate schools, Roman 
Catholic in local management and in organization, 
atmosphere, and teaching. 

It would have been impossible to carry the 
preliminaries to Confederation beyond the Char- 
lottetown convention of September, 1864 — 
beyond the second of the five stages ^ — had not 

1 Cf. Mackenzie, 122-127. 

2 These stages were (i) the agreement effected when the 
Tache-Macdonald government was reorganized in June, 
1864; (2) the Charlottetown convention; (3) the Quebec 
convention; (4) the approval of the Quebec resolutions by 
the legislatures of the several provinces; and (5) the enact- 
ment of the British North America act at Westminster. 

[237] 



Upper 
Canada 
edu- 
cation 
act 
of 1863 



Lower 
Canada 
at 

Confed- 
eration 
demands 
safe- 
guarding 
of 

separate 
school 
system 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

the Fathers of Confederation been wIlHng that 
adequate protection should be afforded in the 
British North America act to the separate school 
system, and the principles on which it was based 
when it was established in 1863. 
Safeguards French Canada would never have given its 
ftotestant suppott to Confederation without this pro- 
schools m tection. There were also in 1 864-1 867 com- 
Cealda paratively large numbers of Roman Catholics — ■ 
French-Canadian, Irish, and Highland-Scotch — • 
in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. 
Moreover, in Montreal and Quebec, and also in 
the eastern townships of the French province, 
there were many people of English and Scotch 
descent who were of the Protestant minorities 
in that province — people who could not send 
their children to the Catholic schools, and who 
were consequently in need of schools similar to 
those of the Protestant majority in Upper Canada. 
Section The protection demanded by those Fathers of 

tt^ee^' Confederation who were vigilant guardians of 
Roman Catholic interests — nearly all of them 
from the French province — was embodied in 
section 93 of the British North America act. 
This section, which forms the fourth division 
in the classification and assignment of powers, 
determines the powers of the provincial legis- 
latures and of the Dominion parliament respec- 
tively with regard to education. 

Carnarvon approached this section with cir- 
cumspection when on February 19, 1867, he 
C238] 



THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 



unfolded the provisions of the bill to the house Carnar- 
of lords. 



Your lordships — he said — will observe some rather 
complicated arrangements in reference to education. The 
object of this clause is to secure to the religious minority of 
one province the same rights, privileges, and protection which 
the religious minority of another province may enjoy. The 
Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada, the Protestant 
minority of Lower Canada, and the Roman Catholic minority 
of the Maritime Provinces will thus stand on a footing of 
entire equality. But in the event of any wrong at the hands 
of the local majority, the minority have a right of appeal 
to the governor-general in council, and may claim the appli- 
cation of any remedial laws that may be necessary from the 
central parliament of the Confederation.^ 

The section as it stands in the act declares that 
"in and for each province, the legislature may 
exclusively make laws in relation to education." 
But the enactment of laws relating to education 
is governed by an important condition, important 
from the point of view of the Roman Catholic 
Church in at least two of the provinces that were 
organized before Confederation, and also in the 
three provinces — Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and 
Alberta — which were created by parliament at 
Ottawa in the years from 1870 to 1905. 

This condition — the kernel of section 93 — 
is that nothing in "any such law shall prejudicially 
affect any right or privilege with respect to de- 
nominational schools which any class of persons 
have by law in the province at the union." 
1 H. L. Debates, February 19, 1867. 

[239] 



von 

explains 

section 

to 

house of 

lords 



A 

restric- 
tion of 
powers 
of legis- 
latures 



Kernel 
of 

section 
93 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Protection In the province of Quebec the legislature can- 
'°' not enact a law prejudicial to separate schools, 

Protestant _ t^ r-. i i- • i 

schools in Protestant or Roman Catholic, without contra- 
Quebec yening section 93. It cannot legislate to the dis- 
advantage of these schools, because by section 
93 "all the powers, privileges, and duties at the 
union, by law conferred and imposed in Upper 
Canada on the separate schools and school 
trustees of the queen's Roman Catholic sub- 
jects," were "extended to the dissentient schools 
of the queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic 
subjects in Quebec." 
Grievances Quite as important as these restrictions on the 
°^ legislatures in enacting laws relating to schools 

minorities , , , 

maintained out of public funds are two other 
provisions of section 93 for remedying any griev- 
ance of minorities that might result from legis- 
latures or governments of the provinces acting 
in contravention of these terms of the British 
North America act. 
Appeal to The first of these provisions declares that where 
governor- jj^ ^^j pj-Qvince a system of separate schools 
In council existed by law at the union, or after the union 
was established, an appeal shall lie to the governor- 
general in council — that is, to the cabinet at 
Ottawa — "from any act or decision of any 
provincial authority affecting any right or privi- 
lege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority 
of the queen's subjects in relation to education." 
"In case any such provincial law, as from time 
to time seems to the governor-general-in-council 
[240] 



THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 

requisite for the due execution of the provisions Remedial 

of this section, is not made," reads the second 1®^^" ^ 

. . . lationby 

of these provisions, "or in case any decision of parUa- 



ment 



the governor-general-in-council or any appeal 
under this section is not duly executed by the 
proper provincial authority in that behalf, then, 
and in every such case, and as far only as the 
circumstances of each case require, the parliament 
of Canada may make remedial laws for the due 
execution of the provisions of this section and of 
any decision of the governor-general under this 
statute." 

V. A Contention-breeding Provision of the British 
North America Act 

Only two of the existing nine provinces of the school 

Dominion had separate school systems at Con- ^'t"**'"'^ 

federation. These were Ontario and Quebec, confed- 

Nova Scotia,^ New Brunswick, and Prince ^^^^^°'^ 
Edward Island^ were free from the system; and 

1 An attempt was made in Nova Scotia on the eve of 
Confederation to assimilate the school law of that province 
to the school laws of Upper and Lower Canada. The move- 
ment was opposed by Tupper, who intimated to Dr. T. L. 
Connolly, Roman Catholic archbishop of Halifax, that he 
should oppose any bill introduced in the legislature to the 
end desired by the archbishop, and should not shrink from 
the performance of that duty were he confident that it would 
terminate his public life. — Saunders, "Life and Letters of 
Sir Charles Tupper," I, 150-152. 

2 In New Brunswick before Confederation there was a 
parish school system. In 1871, after an education bill had 
been enacted by the legislature at Fredericton, the question 

[241 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



British Columbia, six years before it came into 
Confederation, had estabhshed a school system, 
which the education act ^ declared "shall be 
conducted upon strictly non-sectarian principles." 
"Books inculcating the highest morality shall 
be selected for the use of such schools," reads 
another section of the law, "and all books of 
religious character, teaching denominational 
dogma, shall be strictly excluded therefrom." 

In 1872, a year after it came into the union, 
British Columbia amended the education act 
of 1865; and when Robertson, provincial secre- 
tary in the McCreight administration, who was 
in charge of the bill, introduced it to the legis- 
lative assembly, he intimated that its basal 
principles were (i) that every child had a moral 
right to an education, and (2) that the system 
should be free and unsectarian.^ By this act 
of 1872 clergymen were incapacitated from serving 
as school trustees. 

As the school system of British Columbia had 
been established before the province came into 
ection 93 Confederation, it was not possible for the Domin- 
ion government to make section 93 of the British 

was raised as to whether the parish school system constituted 
a separate school system under the terms of the British 
North America act. A case was taken to the judicial com- 
mittee of the privy council at Whitehall. The decision was 
that the New Brunswick parish system could not. properly 
be held to constitute a separate school system. 

^ The Common School act, 1865, 28 and 29 Vict., c. 6. 

2 Cf. Colonist, Victoria, March 14, 1872. 

[242] 



THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 

North America act operative in that province. 
But when Manitoba was created a province in 
1870, the section was made to apply to laws re- 
lating to education passed by its legislature. A 
Conservative government was responsible for the 
Manitoba act. In 1905, when Saskatchewan 
and Alberta were created provinces, a Liberal 
government, supported by fifty-five of the sixty- 
five members of the house of commons from 
Quebec, was in power at Ottawa, and again 
section 93 was extended to the new provinces. 

There was much heated contention over sepa- Conten- 
rate schools in Upper Canada from 1849 to 1863. g°°°J^g' 
But this contention of the era of the United schools 
Provinces was comparatively small, and cer- ^^g^. 
tainly limited in area, as compared with the eraoon 
intense and extended contention and bitterness 
which in the first half-century of Confederation 
were engendered by section 93 of the British 
North America act. 

French-Canadians, in these fifty years, were as 
vigilant in asserting the rights of their church 
under this section, and in securing that the sec- 
tion was extended to the provinces carved out 
of the Hudson Bay Company's territory, as they 
were in insisting on the use of the French language 
in parliament, or in asserting their claims to 
offices in the civil service and to government 
patronage generally, or in opposing the enact- 
ment of the conscription law of 1917. 

Section 93, in the years from 1867 to 191 7, 

[243] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



was at the root of more political crises in Winni- 
peg, Toronto, and Quebec, and also at Ottawa, 
than any other issue in provincial or Dominion 
section 93 politics. It was the occasion of more public 
noise in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec than any 
other controversial question. More political rep- 
utations had their gilt edges worn off in these 
heated and long-drawn-out politico-sectarian, 
constitutional controversies than in any other 
controversy or agitation in Canada from Con- 
federation to the great war. 

Both political parties were vexed and torn by 
these section 93 agitations. Tupper, a Conserv- 
ative premier, partly owed his political downfall 
in 1896 to trouble in Manitoba over section 93, 
and to developments in Ottawa growing out of 
this trouble. Laurier, premier of Liberal govern- 
ments from 1896 to 191 1, lost prestige with the 
Liberals in the constituencies through his part 
in embodying the section in the constitutions of 
Saskatchewan and Alberta. He again lost pres- 
tige in 1916, when as leader of the opposition in 
the house of commons he identified himself with 
claims of the Roman Catholic church under this 
section — claims originating in connection with 
separate schools in Ottawa, which at that time 
were agitating Ontario and Quebec, and making 
business for the judicial committee of the privy 
council in London.^ 

^ Cf. " Priests Block Recruiting in Quebec Province," New 
York Times Magazine, June 25, 1916; Senator Landry's 

[244] 



THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 

The church whose interests were so carefully Roman 
safeguarded at the Quebec convention of 1864 ^^^°^'^ 
has obtained some advantages in other provinces in 
than Quebec by section 93. The area in which ^^^'^ 
schools controlled by its clergy and its lay adher- 
ents are established was extended between 1867 
and 1 91 7 in Ontario, and separate schools were 
established in the prairie provinces. 

The recrudescence of the separate-schools 
question also afforded the church opportunities 
of giving a political lead to its adherents, and of 
keeping in touch with political leaders. The 
schools question also has, since Confederation, 
as in the years from 1849 to 1863 in Upper and 
Lower Canada, strengthened the political soli- 
darity of French-Canadians and kept them in 
association and political sympathy with Roman 
Catholics in other provinces besides Quebec. 

Lawyers have undoubtedly profited from all Profit- 
these agitations. Cases under the separate- 
schools laws found their way into the courts. 
Some of them were carried to the judicial com- 
mittee of the privy council — the court of last 
resort for litigants from India and the British 
dominions that holds its sessions at Whitehall. 
In the first half century of Confederation, section 
93 enriched more barristers in Montreal, Quebec, 
Ottawa, Toronto, and Winnipeg, and more 

letter of May 22, 1916, the Gazette, Montreal, June 3, 1916; 
full text of judgments in school cases, the Gazette, Montreal, 
November 3, 1916. 

[245] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

attorneys and gentlemen of the long robe and 
of the Inns of Court in the neighborhood of 
Temple Bar, than any other section of the British 
North America act. 

Carnarvon, who as colonial secretary managed 
the preliminary negotiations with the Fathers 
of Confederation who were in London in 1867, 
and who piloted the British North America act 
through the house of lords with a good will 
towards Canada and its aspirations and a states- 
manlike parliamentary skill that are kindly 
remembered in the Dominion, described section 
93 as complicated. 

It is complicated. It is one of the most com- 
plicated and contention-breeding sections ever 
embodied in the constitution of any English- 
speaking country. But it must be understood, 
and so must the education systems of the older 
provinces as they existed on the eve of Confeder- 
ation. Otherwise it is impossible to understand 
many political episodes and developments in 
Canada since 1867, or to realize the cause of the 
divisions between Quebec and Ontario in Domin- 
ion politics, or to understand some of the con- 
ditions that have long characterized politics 
at Ottawa. 

; 



[246] 



CHAPTER X 



THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND 
CABINET 

BEFORE Confederation there was a governor- Colonial 
general established at the capital of the 8°^f°- 

° _ *^ , ors be- 

United Provinces, and a governor in each of fore 
the other provinces of British Columbia, Nova ^°^®'*" 
Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward 
Island. They were all appointed by the crown, 
on the advice and recommendation of the colonial 
office in London. They were sent out from Great 
Britain, and were appointed under the patronage 
system as it then existed at Westminster, 

I. The Governor-general under Confederation 

By the British North America act the office of 
governor-general was continued; and governors 
of the other provinces ceased to be appointed by 
the colonial office. For governors sent out from 
Great Britain there were substituted lieutenant- 
governors — invariably Canadians — appointed 
by the governor-general in council — in practice 
by the cabinet at Ottawa. 

No change was made by the British North 
America act in the general relations of the gov- 
ernor-general to the cabinet. These remained 
the same as from 1849 — the year in which 

[247] 



Lieu- 

tenant- 

govem- 

ors under 

the 

B. N. A. 

act 



Gov- 
ernor- 
general 
and the 
cabinet 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Elgin, continuing an undertaking successfully 
begun by Sydenham in 1841, aided in com- 
pletely establishing responsible government in 
the United Provinces. 

By responsible government, it will be recalled, 
is meant the system under which the governor- 
general must form his executive council or cab- 
inet only from members of parliament who can 
command the support of a majority of the mem- 
bers of the house of commons — the house which 
in practice has sole control of the powers of 
taxation and appropriation. 

There was no law, either of the imperial parlia- 
ment or of the legislature of the United Provinces, 
establishing the system of responsible govern- 
ment. There is no law of the imperial parliament 
which established the cabinet at Ottawa exactly 
as it is constituted today — as it has been con- 
stituted since 1867.^ Nor is there any law which 
declares that the cabinet at Whitehall must be 

* All that the section of the British North America act 
establishing the executive council or cabinet says is, "There 
shall be a council to aid and advise the government of Canada, 
to be styled the queen's privy council for Canada; and the 
persons who are to be members of that council shall be from 
time to time chosen and summoned by the governor-general 
and sworn in as privy councilors, and the members thereof 
may be from time to time removed by the governor-general." 
— -Section XI. "The provisions of the British North- 
America act imply, though they do not express, the unwritten 
conventions of British parliamentary practice." — H. E. 
Egerton, " Federations and unions within the British Empire," 
123-24. 

[248] 



GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET 



chosen by the king from members of parliament 
who command a majority in the house of commons 
at Westminster. The cabinet system at White- 
hall is based on usage — on a custom of the con- 
stitution which has been continuously followed 
for at least two centuries. 

At the capital of the United Provinces the 
system of responsible government was also based 
only on usage, or on the custom of the constitution. 
From 1840 to 1867 the United Provinces had a 
written constitution — the act of union of 1840, 
with the liberalizing amendments made by the 
imperial parliament in 1847 and 1854. But they 
had also, as has already been told, an unwritten 
constitution. 

The greatly restricted power of the legislative 
council in respect to money bills — the power to 
reject but not to amend a money bill — was deter- 
mined by the unwritten constitution. So also 
was the right of the legislature to enact a tariff 
without regard to the industrial and commercial 
interests of the United Kingdom, a right first 
asserted and exercised in 1858. It was also under 
the unwritten constitution that responsible govern- 
ment was established in 1 841-1845, and main- 
tained inviolate from 1849 to 1867. 

Quite important parts of the constitution of 
the Dominion are still unwritten. The British 
North America act ordains that "bills for appro- 
priating any part of the public revenue or for 
imposing any tax or impost shall originate in 

[249] 



Un- 
written 
consti- 
tution 
of the 
United 
Provinces 



Un- 
written 
consti- 
tution 
of the 
Dominion 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

the house of commons." The conditions under 
which money bills shall originate — conditions 
which prevent any money bill from originating 
except at the instance of the privy council or 
cabinet — are also determined by the written 
constitution. 

There is, however, no section in the act which 
decrees that the senate shall have far less power 
over money bills — a power that in practice is 
scarcely more than nominal — than is exercised 
by the house of commons. Nor was there any 
section in the Quebec act of 1791, or in the act of 
union of 1840, which gave to the three legis- 
lative assemblies of 1791-1867^ the larger powers 
which they exercised over money bills. In regard 
to money bills the legislative councils were in 
the same position as is today the senate at Ottawa. 
In all matters affecting the raising and appro- 
priation of the provincial revenues they were in 
an inferior or secondary position in relation to 
the legislative assemblies. 

The larger powers of the commons of the Domin- 
ion over money bills are based on a custom of 
the constitution of the United Kingdom, which 
originated at Westminster in 1661 ^ — a custom 
that had been established for almost a century 

^ The legislative assembly of Upper Canada, the legislative 
assembly of Lower Canada, and the legislative assembly of 
the United Provinces. 

2 Cf. Porritt, "Unreformed House of Commons," I, 548- 
557- 

[ 250 ] 



GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET 

before the first elected legislative assembly in Respon- 
any of the present oversea dominions of Great ^^^^® 

. . . . . . govem- 

Britain came into existence at Halifax in 1758. ment 
Responsible government in the Dominion, ^^~ ^ 

r- o ^ ' yeloped 

the system of government that restricts drasti- by usage 
cally the actual power and authority of the 
governor-general at Ottawa, is also still based 
only on usage and custom. Neither by the 
British North America act, nor by any subsequent 
legislation at Westminster, was direct statutory 
sanction given to the system of government in 
Canada that between 1841 and 1849 was created 
by the statesmen of the United Provinces, and 
accepted by Sydenham, Bagot, and Elgin as 
representatives of the crown. 

II. Relations of the Governor-general to the 
Cabinet 

There is, however, a section in the British Govern- 
North America act that to some degree and °^" 

general 

indirectly establishes responsible government, must act 
and much of what in Canada between 1841 and "^^^dvice 
1867 had come to be associated with the term — cabinet 
Canadian in origin — "responsible government." 
"The provisions of this act relating to the gov- 
ernor-general," it reads, "shall be construed as 
referring to the governor-general, acting by and 
with the advice of the queen's privy council for 
Canada." 

Lafontaine and Baldwin and their colleagues 
of the movement for responsible government, 

[251 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



it will be recalled, made two demands on Met- 
calfe in 1 843-1 845. They insisted on his acting 
on two principles. The first was that he should 
select his executive council — or cabinet — only 
from the political party which commanded a 
majority in the legislative assembly. The second 
was that he should act in all political matters 
only on the advice of the council so chosen. 

Elgin's policies and actions as governor-general 
of the United Provinces from 1847 to 1854 were 
based on these two principles. His fame in 
Canadian history, and in the history of the Empire, 
rests on his part in the establishment of respon- 
sible government. Head and Monck, his suc- 
cessors, acted on the precedents that Elgin had 
established. 

These principles were soon adopted in other 
British colonies. They were, in fact, so quickty, 
and completely adopted in the British North 
American provinces, in Australasia, and in South 
Africa, that as early as i860, seven years before 
Confederation, responsible government had be- 
come so general in British colonies with parlia- 
mentary institutions, and the powers of governors 
had thereby been so greatly curtailed, that Sir 
William Denison, governor of New South Wales 
from 1854 to 1 861, expressed regret that under 
the new order there remained little real work 
for governors to do. 

While serving as governor at Sydney, Denison, 
who was of the old school of colonial adminis- 

[252] 



GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET 



trators, was appointed governor of Madras, a 
province of India, in which there was no represen- 
tative government, and consequently no system 
of responsible government. "I look forward 
with great pleasure," he wrote from Sydney, 
on November 17, i860, "to the idea of having 
something to do. In these responsible govern- 
ments one sees much going on which is most 
objectionable. Yet one is powerless either to do 
good or to prevent evil." ^ 

New duties and added responsibilities were 
imposed by the British North America act on 
the governor-in-council. These new duties nec- 
essarily accrued to the cabinet in a federation 
which in 1867 included four provinces and by 1905 
had come to include nine. Only two or three 
examples need be cited to illustrate the new duties 
that had to be assumed by the cabinet of the 
Dominion, duties of a class and importance such 
as had never been discharged by the executive 
council of the United Provinces nor by the 
cabinet of any British North American province 
in the era of 1 791-1867. 

The appointment of lieutenant-governors of 
the provinces, by the British North America act, 
is vested in the governor-general-in-council. On 
the governor-general-in-council is also imposed the 
responsibility of disallowing acts passed by the 
provincial legislatures; and it is to the governor- 
general-in-council that aggrieved minorities under 
^ Denison, "Varieties of Viceregal Life," I, 497. 

C253] 



Position 
of 

colonial 
governor 
under 
respon- 
sible 
govern- 
ment 



Govem- 

or-in- 

council 



Increased 

powers 

and 

new 

functions 

of the 

Dominion 

cabinet 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



section 93 — the separate-schools section — make 
their appeals for remedial measures. 

Orders-in-council made under statutory author- 
ity — orders promulgated in the Canada Gazette, 
the official journal of the Dominion — which have 
the force of law, also issue from the governor- 
general-in-council. These orders, under the fed- 
eral system, are necessarily more numerous, much 
more important, and in every way a larger part 
of the governmental machinery than orders-in- 
council were in the period in which every province 
was separately organized, and conducted, through 
its governor, all its own business and its nego- 
tiations with the sister provinces and with the 
imperial government. 

At most, however, these new duties and respon- 
sibilities thrown upon the governor-general-in- 
council add only to the dignity and the nominal 
importance of the governor-general. The gov- 
ernor-general-in-council in reality is not much 
more than the title of the cabinet, the king's 
privy council in Canada. 

III. The Governor-general and Party 
Politics 

The presence of the governor-general-in-council 
is today not much more than a constitutional 
fiction. In the chamber of the king's privy 
council, in the eastern block at Ottawa, there is 
a high-backed, decorated chair. It is at the head 
of the council board. It is reserved for the 
[254] 



GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET 



king's representative. There is a tradition at 
Ottawa that in the days of the United Provinces 
this chair was sometimes occupied by the governor- 
general. But rare indeed are the occasions since 
Confederation when the regal chair has been 
occupied by the governor-general during a session 
of the cabinet. 

Why the governor-general of the Dominion 
has seldom Or never sat at the head of the cabinet 
table has been explained by a former governor- 
general, the late Duke of Argyll, who was much 
appreciated and popular in Canada during his 
term of office from 1878 to 1883. 

Argyll, who until 1900 was Marquis of Lome, 
assumed office at Ottawa in November, 1878. 
In a private letter written in November or Decem- 
ber of that year, the new governor-general re- 
marked on some of the old world usages he had 
discovered in the new world capital. 

It is curious — he wrote — how old monarchical ways, 
no longer known in Great Britain, still survive in some forms 
in the free and self-governing colonies. For instance, now 
that I have taken up my work, and attend at the government 
buildings to all the papers that are brought before me, I am 
sometimes told that my predecessors used to attend also the 
meetings of the cabinet, quite as we may suppose the Stuart 
monarchs may have presided at their council of state, when 
their ministers deliberated. Now you know well, or ought 
to know, that the queen, and the sovereigns before her since 
the revolution, have done this but seldom. When the queen 
nominally presides at a council it is only a form, for all de- 
cisions have been previously taken. She has seen the papers 
that led to the decision, and she may herself, or through her 



Non- 
attend- 
ance of 
governor- 
general 
at 

meetings 
of 
cabinet 



Survival 
of old 
monar- 
chical ' 
usages 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

secretary, have taken part in written or oral discussion, but 

with each minister, or the prime minister singly, and not in 

cabinet conclave. 

Regal But the governor-general of Canada has often himself 

chair In sat and spoken in the cabinet conclave. To prove this to 

tte cabinet ^^ j ^^^ shown the council room, in which a high-backed, 

decorated chair was placed at the head of the long table, 

and ranged along the table at each side, were the chairs for 

the ministers. I said, as soon as I saw this cabinet throne, 

that I would not be representing the queen in occupying it 

when ministers were engaged in consulting with each other 

about any bill they proposed to bring forward in the house, 

and that I would never use it. 



"Nor did I," added Argyll, when in 1907 
these notes of 1878 were published in his reminis- 
cences, "do so — sit in the regal chair — even for 
the formality of assenting to bills passed, which 
was done by signing council orders." ^ 

The attitude and policy of Argyll towards the 
cabinets of 1 878-1 882 was also the attitude of 
the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Stanley of 
Preston, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Minto, 
Earl Grey, and the Duke of Connaught, who were 
successively governors-general from 1883 to the 
outbreak of war in 1914. No other attitude, 
in fact, was possible; for no other attitude would 
have been tolerated by the statesmen or by the 
people of the Dominion. 

The governor-general's attitude on all political 
questions must be absolutely non-partisan. What- 
ever his party affiliations at Westminster may 

1 Argyll, "Passages from the Past," II, 412. 
[256] 



GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET 

have been, immediately he assumes office at 
Ottawa, as the representative of the king, his 
attitude towards poHtical parties and poHtical 
agitations of all kinds, in the constituencies as 
well as in parliament, must be as nearly as he 
can approach it the attitude of the king toward 
political parties at Westminster. 

As the king's representative he must stand His 
aloof in all party contentions. He must accept ***^^"*® 

• r 1 r toward 

the services of the group of party leaders who the ins 

can command a majority in the house of com- ^^ *^® 

. outs 

mons. But he must be ready at any time to 

accept the services of the leaders of the opposition, 

if a ministerial crisis, or the issue of a general 

election, brings about the downfall of the party 

in power, and control of the house of commons is 

transferred to the party previously in opposition. 

IV. hifluence of the Governor-general on Political 
Life 

A political history of Canada from 1867 to Cor- 
1917 that was loyal to the truth would have to ^^^°^ 
tell of much corruption and of many scandals political 
at Ottawa. Some of the scandals grew out of ^'^^'^^ 
methods resorted to by politicians in power to 
raise money for election campaigns from Canada's 
governing class — from the men who were dicker- 
ing for railway charters and the accompanying 
land grants and subsidies from the Dominion 
treasury; ^ from beneficiaries of the tariff and of 
1 Cf. Boyd, 328-332. 

C257] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

the iron and steel bounties of 1883-1911;^ 
from men who desired large grants of public 
lands with valuable timber rights; and from men 
who were seeking by orders of the governor- 
general-in-council valuable mineral or water 
rights.^ 

Other political scandals of the first fifty years 
of Confederation developed out of corrupt rela- 
tions of politicians in power with contractors for 
public buildings, for dredging, and other public 
works; ^ out of the corruption^ and frauds at elec- 
tions to the house of commons; out of the lavish 
expenditures on the immigration propaganda; 



1 Cf. Cartwright on the Red Parlor at Ottawa, H. C. De- 
bates, April II, 1890. 

2 "Generally I would charge against your party, as repre- 
sented by the governments in which you sat," wrote Sir 
John Willison, editor of the News, Toronto, to Sir Charles 
Tupper, in 1903, "that it carried on a strong constructive 
Canadian policy by bad political methods, and gross corrup- 
tion in the constituencies; and that the net result was to 
build up Canada, and greatly lower the public morals." — 
Saunders, "Life and Letters of Sir Charles Tupper," II, 255. 

^ Cf. Speech by Sir George E. Foster, Minister of Trade 
and Commerce, House of Commons, Ottawa, February 17, 
1916; and "Campaign Funds, Dominion and Provincial," 
Tribune, Winnipeg, November 30, 1915. 

* "In Canada the necessity of two contending parties 
to obtain an electoral majority in every district is a cor- 
rupting influence which poisons the life of the people from 
the Atlantic to the Pacific." — Viscount Grey of Fallodon, 
letter on proportional representation. The Times, London, 
April 2, 1917. 

[258] 



GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET 



and out of the purchase of small railway lines, 
to be used as feeders or branches of the Inter- 
colonial Railway, the line owned and operated 
by the Dominion government, that connects St. 
John and Halifax with Montreal.^ 

Political conditions at Ottawa and in the con- 
stituencies, that since 1867 have continued or 
developed these flaws in the working of the repre- 
sentative and administrative institutions of Can- 
ada, are soon obvious to a new governor-general. 
He cannot read Canadian history, the debates 
in parliament, the reports of royal commissions 
and investigating committees, or even the daily 
newspapers, without becoming aware of them. 
But the position of the king's representative 
at Ottawa in regard to political parties and 
political controversy is, and since 1849 has 
always been, such as to make corrective action on 
his part impossible. 

The Dominion is under responsible govern- 
ment. This is a condition that obviously ad- 
mits of no change. However great the scandal, 
there can be no interference by the governor- 
general, so long as the political party in the 
majority stands ready to support the government 
in the house of commons at Ottawa. 

"The Canadian ministers," said Gladstone, 
when, during his administration of 1 868-1 874, 
his attention was called in the house of commons 
to the scandal over the first charter for the 

^ Cf. Grain Growers' Guide, Winnipeg, May 31, 1915. 

[259] 



An ex- 
govemor- 
general's 
descrip- 
tion of 
political 
con- 
ditions 



The 

attitude 

at 

Whitehall 

toward 

poUtical 

scandals 

in the 

Dominion 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Canadian Pacific Railway, granted by the Mac- 
donald government in 1872, "are responsible 
to their parliament, and are not in any way 
responsible to us for their conduct. I do not 
think this is a matter in which it is competent or 
desirable for us to interfere." ^ 
An attitude Investigations into the granting of the first 
in which chatter for the first trans-continental line across 

no change 

is possible the Dominion revealed the worst scandal in the 
history of Great Britain's oversea dominions. 
Macdonald, by the action of the house of com- 
mons at Ottawa, was forced to resign, and was 
out of power from 1873 ^o 1878. The scandal 
was not forgotten in Great Britain, when, after 
his death in 1891, tributes to Macdonald as an 
empire builder were paid in parliament at West- 
minster. But neither in Great Britain nor in 
Canada has the attitude which Gladstone as- 
sumed in 1873 ever been questioned. 
No The Dominion of Canada, like all the domin- 

uninvited Jqj^s, is Under responsible government in the fullest 
ference meaning of the term. Canadians pride themselves 
on this fact. They point with pride also to the 
leading and conspicuous part which the old British 
North American provinces had from 1791 to 
1849 in securing responsible government and the 
status of nation for the other oversea dominions 
of the empire. In the internal aflPairs of Canada 
there can never be any uninvited interference 
by Great Britain, either through parliament at 
1 H. C. Debates, August i, 1873. 
[260] 



from 

Great 

Britain 



GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET 

Westminster, or through the colonial office or 
the governor-general.^ 

Recognition of this fact is one of the funda- Pouacai 
mental principles of the relations between Great ^*^*' 
Britain and the oversea dominions. Failure to a matter 
recognize it, and to adapt all policies in accord- ^°' *^® 
ance with it, would endanger the tie that holds Canada 
the Empire together. The government of Canada 
can be made responsible in the widest and best 
sense of the term — a government under which 
it will be impossible for any governing class to 
achieve its unsocial ends — only by the action 
of the men and women of Canada. 

Only by public opinion, expressed at the polls, a 
can the government be made actually responsible *=°""p*- 
to all the people of the Dominion. Only by govem- 
public opinion, so expressed, will an end be made ^^ 
to a party system that permits a small governing 
class, systematically using both political parties, 
to name the men who shall hold this or that port- 
folio in the Dominion cabinet,^ or to dictate 

1 "The king is a constitutional monarch, reigning by 
virtue of an act of parliament, who leaves ruling to those whose 
constitutional duty it is — the ministry responsible to the 
people of the British Isles. That ministry has long ceased 
to interfere with Canadian affairs. It would not think of 
directing or even advising the people of Canada or its ministry 
what to do, or to leave undone." — Riddell, "Constitution 
of Canada," 90-91. 

* In the twenty years from 1896 to 1917 there were only 
two changes of government at Ottawa. At each of these 
changes — the first in 1896, and the second in 191 1 — the 

[261: 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

policies and legislation in its own interest, and 
antagonistic to the interests of the people as a 
whole.^ 
PubUc Public opinion in Canada is slow in expressing 

opinion itself at the polls against a government under 
expressing which corruption has manifested itself, or against 
itself ^ government which has repudiated pledges by 
virtue of which it was elected.^ Only once in 
the first half century of Confederation, in 1874, 
did the electors of the Dominion dethrone a 
government because it had proved corrupt and 
untrustworthy.^ 
Party An administration at Ottawa is little perturbed 

fealty jjy ^}^g exposure of a scandal unless it is so grave 
as to bring about its downfall. The party 
supporters of the government in the house of 
commons — the only house that need be consid- 
ered in these matters — under any and all con- 
ditions will vote with the government.* The 
party press from Halifax to Victoria will white- 
wash the government, and insist, no matter how 

governing class, represented on both occasions by the bankers 
of Montreal and Toronto, dictated to the incoming premier 
the man on whom he must bestow the portfolio of minister 
of finance. 

^ Cf. Goldwin Smith, "On the Position and Functions 
of the Governor-General," Sun, Toronto, March 18, 1908, 
and A. MacPhail, "Essays in Politics," 92. 

2 Cf. Porritt, "Sixty Years of Protection in Canada," 

363-387- 

3 Cf. Cartwright, "Reminiscences," IIO-119. 
* Cf. Cartwright, ibid., 112. 

[262] 



GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET 

gross the scandal that has been exposed, that 
conditions are no worse than they were when the 
opposition was in power. 

Much the same attitude will be taken by the Rigidity 
active supporters of the government in the con- ^ ^*^ 
stituencies, and in particular by the local political 
mechanics; for nowhere in the English-speaking 
world in normal times are party lines more rigidly 
drawn or more rigidly adhered to than in Canada. 

In the constituencies there is no large body of 
electors who are unattached to either political 
party. There is no large independent vote, as 
there is in the United Kingdom and the United 
States; ^ and unfortunately for the beneficent 
working of the party system and of representa- 
tive institutions, conditions in Dominion politics 
from 1896 to the beginning of the war in 1914 
were such as not to admit of the existence of a 
strong, aggressive, and effective opposition in 
the house of commons at Ottawa. 

V. Extra-Official Utterances of the Governor- 
general 

On the everyday political life of the Dominion Gov- 
— on the policies, standards, and ideals of states- ®™°'" , 

^ , ' ' general 

men and parties at Ottawa — the governor- and 
general has not as much influence, direct or *^°*®'^' 

... . . . porary 

mdirect, as the editor of any widely circulated pouocs 
newspaper that is not tied to any poHtical party. 

^ Cf. Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," notes IV and 
V, ios-6. 

[263] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Academic 
freedom 
of the 
governor- 
general 



Functions 
of 

governor- 
general 
more than 
formal 



Only with his constitutional advisers is it allow- 
able for him to talk politics. In public, con- 
temporary politics is a forbidden subject for a 
governor-general; and discretion must be ex- 
ercised when he ventures to discourse from a 
public platform on religion, economics, or so- 
ciology. 

There is not much even of academic freedom 
for a governor-general. Grey, who was at Ottawa 
from 1904 to 191 1, was much criticized because 
he spoke in public on the widespread success in 
England and Scotland of cooperation on the 
Rochdale principle. Even in discussing on the 
platform general or abstract principles and 
virtues, a governor-general must use much 
circumspection, and take due care that any 
speech he makes is accurately reported in the 
press. On contemporary politics in all their 
various aspects he must not, in public, venture 
even a hint. It might be construed as prejudicial 
to the political party in power, or as giving aid 
and comfort to the party in opposition in the 
house of commons. 

The position of governor-general in Canada, 
or in any of the other four dominions, is, admit- 
tedly, much as Denison described the position 
of the governor of New South Wales, in i860. 
But the office is more than the most visible link 
that binds the Dominion to Great Britain and 
the empire. Some of the functions that attach 
to the office are ceremonial. Others are only 

[264] 



GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET 

formal. Formal as they are, they must be faith- 
fully discharged, or there might be crises when 
the day- by-day business of the Dominion would 
come indefinitely to a standstill. 

It was a maxim of Wellington's, in the political WeiUng- 
years of his long career, that come what might |^°^^ 
to political parties at Westminster, the king's 
business must go on; and the important mission 
of the governor-general is to see that, no matter 
what may happen to contending political parties, 
the king's business in Canada goes on. 

More than once it has been suggested in Canada a 
that the governor-general should be elected. ^^^^ 
There are Canadians — many of them — who govemor- 
could discharge the executive functions of the gov- ^^ggj^. 
ernor-general; and little harm would result if able 
some of the ceremonial functions were abandoned. 
But no popular election could possibly carry into 
the office a man sufficiently aloof from political 
parties and political controversies and agitations 
to exercise the delicate and important consti- 
tutional functions that come at times into the 
day's work of the governor-general under the 
present system of representative and responsible 
government. 

It is the complete aloofness of the governor- 
general from the fortunes of all political parties 
in Canada; his disinterestedness in all politics 
in the Dominion except the smooth and contin- 
uous running of government; and the fact that 
his term in Ottawa is fixed, and he is indebted 

C265] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

to no party, no interest, and no man in Canada 
for his appointment, that gives value to the 
governor-general's position. 
Men who It is sometimes asserted that if Great Britain 
serve had no king, a king must be created, if the system 
and the of government by parliament and cabinet, as it 
empire j^^g been developed since 1688, were to continue. 
The same might be asserted of the governor- 
generalship of Canada. It is inconceivable that 
representative and responsible government could 
continue, as it has been developed since 1841, 
without a governor-general sent out from England; 
and so long as the existing form of government 
continues, the men in political life in Great 
Britain who, for terms of four or five years, 
exchange Westminster for Ottawa to serve as 
governor-general, render good service not only 
to Canada, but to the empire and to British 
political civilization. 



[266] 



CHAPTER XI 



parliament: the senate 

FROM 1856 to 1866 the council of the legis- 
lature of the United Provinces was partly 
nominated and partly elected;^ and the two 
provinces — Ontario and Quebec — were divided 
into senatorial electoral districts. At Confedera- 
tion the elective principle was discarded; and by 
the British North America act it was provided that 
there should be a senate and a house of commons, 
and that members of the senate should be ap- 
pointed by the crown, acting through the governor- 
general. 

In practice this obviously meant that the 
senators were to be appointed by the cabinet at 
Ottawa; for since the end of the Metcalfe regime 
of 1843-1845, it had not been in the power of a 
governor-general to appoint even a postmaster 
or a collector of customs, except on the advice 
of the executive council or the cabinet. 

The statutory qualifications for senator are 
(i) that he shall be of the full age of thirty years; 
(2) that he shall be either a natural-born or 
naturalized subject of the king; (3) that he shall 
hold freehold property within the province for 

^ Cf. Statutes of the Province of Canada, 19 and 20 Vic- 
toria, c. cxl. 

1 267 2 



Principle 

of 

elected 

upper 

chamber 

discarded 



Senators 
appointed 
by 
cabinet 



Qualifi- 
cations 
for 
senator 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

which he is appointed, of the value of $4000 
over and above all incumbrances; (4) that his 
real and personal property shall be worth $4000 
over and above his debts and liabilities; (5) 
that he shall be resident in the province for 
which he is appointed; and (6) in the case of 
Quebec, that he shall have his real property 
qualification in the senatorial division for which 
he is appointed or shall be resident in that division. 

I. Abandonment of the Elective Principle 

Objection In February, 1865, when the resolutions of the 
^ J, Quebec conference were before the legislative 

discarding ^- . . . . 

elective assembly of the United Provinces, objection was 

principle jj^ade both to the abandonment of the elective 

principle for the senate and to the continuing of 

senatorial divisions for Quebec, while no such 

provision was made for senatorial divisions in 

the other provinces. 

Grounds George Brown, of Ontario, who was of the 

on which administration that carried the Quebec resolutions 

It was . ^~ , 

discarded through the legislature of the United Provinces, 
answered both of these criticisms. One of the 
reasons for abandoning the elective principle 
was the dread that an elective upper house might 
encroach on the powers of the lower house. It 
might claim power over money bills, which the 
lower house claimed as its right. 
Elected "Could they not," asked the leader of the 

senate and Qntario Liberals of the era of Confederation, 

money 

bills "justly say that they represent the people as 

[268] 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

well as we do, and that the control of the purse 
strings ought therefore to belong to them as much 
as to us? They might amend our money bills. 
They might throw out our bills if they liked, 
and bring to a stop the whole machinery of 
government." 

Another reason for abandoning the elective cost of 
principle as it had been tried from i8i;6 was that ^f*^^*"^*^ 

, , . f. (. . . ~ election 

the election of senators from districts of large 
area made it difficult to find men who were 
willing to be candidates. "The constituencies," 
continued Brown, in speaking of the forty-eight 
electoral divisions for the legislative council of 
the United Provinces, "are so vast that it is diffi- 
cult to find gentlemen who have the will to incur 
the labor of such a contest, who are sufficiently 
known and popular enough throughout districts 
so wide, and who have money enough to pay 
the enormous bills that are sent in after the combat 
is over." ^ 

These were the reasons advanced in 1865 for Radicals 
abandoning the elective principle — a principle ^^^^ 
for which radicals of the school of Papineau and principle 
Mackenzie had contended ten or fifteen years 
before the rebellions of 1837, and for which 
radicals had contended from the union of 1840 
until 1856, when the principle was adopted for 
both houses of the legislature. 

One reason for the abandonment was not 
publicly advanced by any of the Fathers of 
. ^ Mackenzie, "Life of George Brown," 306-307. 

[269] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Greasing Confederation. It was known that seventy-two 
the ways sgn^t-oj-s^ with salaries, and holding office for life, 
Confed- would be appointed at Confederation; and a 
r^iutions P^'-^ ^^^^ these appointments should be made 
from among men already in the legislative coun- 
cils of the United Provinces and of the Maritime 
Provinces undoubtedly greased the ways for the 
Quebec resolutions in the legislatures of what are 
now sometimes described as the senior provinces 
of the Dominion. 

II. Senatorial Divisions in Province of Quebec 

Senatorial How it comes about that today, as since 1867, 
^visions senators at Ottawa from Quebec represent sena- 
Quebec torial divisions, while senators from Nova Scotia, 
New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, 
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British 
Columbia represent their provinces at large, 
can be learned from the speech of the Liberal 
leader of Ontario when the Quebec resolutions 
were before the legislative assembly of the United 
Provinces. Many important concessions were 
made to the French province to insure the 
success of the movement for Confederation.^ 

^ "No other constitution would give French-Canadians 
such liberty. If French-Canadians were to break the consti- 
tution, what kind of a constitution would they now get from 
the majority of the people of Canada? Would they get the 
same rights? No. I believe in the constitution that Cartier 
got for us. By this constitution the majority of the people 
cannot harm us. The signature of the king of England is 
there, and no force can change it one iota." — Speech by 

[2703 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

The concession of senatorial districts was held to 
be necessary to safeguard the sectional interests 
of the province. 

" Our Lower Canada friends " — said Brown ^ — Safe- 
" felt that they had French-Canadian interests ^^^ 
and British interests to be protected; and they interests 
conceived that the existing system of electoral ^*^t 
divisions would give protection to these separate province 
interests. We, in Upper Canada, on the other 
hand, were quite content that they should settle 
that among themselves, and maintain their 
existing divisions if they chose. But so far as 
we in the west were concerned, we had no such 
separate interests to protect. We had no di- 
versities of origin or language to reconcile; and 
we felt that the true interest of Upper Canada 
was that her very best men should be sent to 
the legislative council wherever they might hap- 
pen to reside, or wherever their property was 
located."^ 

For the legislative councils of the old British upper 
North American provinces the only special claim ^^^' 
that was ever made was that as their members safe- 
were nominated by the crown, acting through s>^^^ 

° f or the 

the governors, they afforded a safeguard to the British 
British connection. When all the provinces were "^on^ec- 
Lieutenant-Colonel P. E. Blondin, ex-member of house of 
commons, grandson of Edmund Barnard, associate of Papi- 
neau in rebellion of 1837, at meeting in Montreal, May 7, 
1917, to stimulate recruiting of French-Canadians for Cana- 
dian overseas forces. — Gazette, Montreal, May 8, 1917. 
^ February 8, 1865. 2 Mackenzie, 309. 

[271] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

in possession of representative and responsible 
government — after 1851 — the legislative coun- 
cils ceased to have this value, because a gov- 
ernor-general or a governor could appoint to the 
legislative council only on the recommendation 
of the executive of the province, which owed its 
existence from day to day to a majority in the 
popularly elected assembly, and the maintenance 
of the British connection was never taken into 
account by the executive councils in their ap- 
pointments to the legislative councils. 
The Since Confederation, when the usefulness of 

anTthe *^^ Senate at Ottawa has been challenged, it 
provinces has been asserted that the senate represents the 
provinces, much in the same way as the senate 
at Washington represents the states.^ Quebec, 
since 1867, has continuously had more peculiar 
interests to safeguard than any of the other 
provinces. For French-Canadians, religion and 
language are the most important of these interests. 
The population in Quebec of British origin is 
largely urban. Its special care is the industrial, 
commercial, maritime, and financial interests of 
Montreal, which are not the interests of the rural 
population. 

From 1867 to 1913, 113 bills originating in the 
house of commons were rejected by the senate. 
An examination of these rejected bills would not 

^ Cf. Wrong, "Second Chambers in Canada," The New 
Statesman, London, February 7, 19 14; Gazette, Montreal, 
April 27, 1915. 

[272] 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

disclose that many of them assailed the interest a claim 
of any of the provinces; and it would seem that * 
the claim that the senate represents the provinces on only 
and safeguards their interests grows exclusively °^^^^s 
out of the peculiar interests of Quebec. This 
much is certain: one of the earliest recognitions 
of the principle that the senate represents the 
provinces is contained in the section of the con- 
stitution of 1867 that continues for Quebec the 
senatorial divisions that came into existence in 
1856, when for the first time in any country 
under the British crown, part of the members 
of the upper house of a legislature were popu- 
larly elected, and like members of the lower 
house were responsible to their constituents. 

III. Membership of Senate from i86y to igi6 — 
Provision to End Deadlocks 

At Confederation there were seventy-two in- 

senators from the three geographical divisions '^^^^ 

created in 1867. There were twenty-four from number 

Ontario, twenty-four from Quebec, and twenty- °* , 

' -' _ , . senators 

four from the Maritime Provinces, In the years 
from 1867 to 1905 British Columbia came into 
Confederation, and Manitoba, Saskatchewan, 
and Alberta were organized as provinces. Addi- 
tions to the senate followed the incoming of 
British Columbia and the organization of the 
three prairie provinces; and from 1906 to 1916 
the number of senators stood at eighty-seven. 

[273] 



Four geo- 
graphical 
divisions 
in senate 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

In 1 916, at the instance of the Dominion 
parliament, the section of the British North 
America act that determines the number of 
senators, and their distribution among the 
provinces, was amended by parUament at West- 
minster; and the senate has since consisted of 
ninety-six members. There are now four geo- 
graphical divisions: 

Ontario 24 

Quebec 24 

Maritime Provinces 24 

Nova Scotia 10 

New Brunswick 10 

Prince Edward Island 4 

Canada beyond the Great Lakes . 24 

Manitoba 6 

Saskatchewan 6 

Alberta 6 

British Columbia 6 



New- 
found- 
land's 
quota 



Provision 
to end 
dead- 
locks of 
house 
and 
senate 



The door to Confederation has always been 
wide open to Newfoundland. Had Newfound- 
land thrown in its lot with the Dominion it would, 
before 1916, have been entitled to four senators 
at Ottawa. By the 1916 amendment to the 
British North America act it would now be entitled 
to six senators. 

In the event of a deadlock between the senate 
and house of commons additional senators may 
be appointed; but the number of these appoint- 
ments has always been fixed by the British North 
America act and its amendments. From 1867 
to the amendment of 1916 the number was three 
or six — one or two from each division. It is now 

[274] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Criticism 
of 

deadlock 
provision 



Quebec's 

objection 

to 

unlimited 

increase 

in 

numbers 

of senate 



four or eight; and including seats for senators 
from Newfoundland, until there is another amend- 
ment to the British "North America act, the total 
number of senators cannot exceed no. In the 
event of the appointment of senators to end a 
deadlock, the governor-general "shall not sum- 
mon any person to the senate until each of the 
four divisions is represented by twenty-four sen- 
ators and no more." 

The Fathers of Confederation had to answer 
criticisms of this provision of the constitution, 
as they had of the abandonment of the elective 
principle, the retaining of senatorial divisions 
only in Quebec, and life membership in the senate. 
It fell to George Brown to answer all these criti- 
cisms, apparently because the criticisms came from 
Liberals in Ontario, in which province Brown, 
after the death of Baldwin in 1858, was the leader 
of the Liberal party. 

It was objected that if members of the senate 
were to be appointed for life the number should 
be unlimited, so that in the event of a deadlock 
between the senate and the house there should 
be power to overcome the deadlock by the appoint- 
ment of additional members. "Under the British 
constitution, in the case of a legislative union," 
said Brown, in answering this criticism, "that 
might be a legitimate provision. But honorable 
gentlemen must see that the limitation of the 
numbers in the upper house lies at the base of 
the whole compact on which this scheme rests. 

[276] 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

It is perfectly clear, as was contended by those 
who represented Lower Canada in the conference/ 
that if the number of legislative councilors was 
made capable of increase, you would thereby 
sweep away the whole protection they had in the 
upper chamber." ^ 



IV. Life Tenure of Senators — Salary and 
Privileges 

George Brown was a convert to the principle Defense 
of life membership in the senate. He frankly principle 
admitted his conversion when he was called upon of life 
to defend the principle in the legislative assembly. ^^^J^' 
Answering the objection that there ought to be senate 
a limit to the term of senators, he told the assem- 
bly that he had been in favor of a limited term. 
"I thought it would be well," he said, "to provide 
for a more frequent change in the composition 
of the upper house, and lessen the danger of the 
chamber being largely composed of gentlemen 
whose advanced years might forbid the punctual 
and vigorous discharge of their public duties." 



The objection to this — Brown continued — was very Con- 
strong. It was said: "Suppose you appoint them for nine ception 
years, what will be the effect? For the last three or four 
years of their term they would be anticipating its expiring, 
and anxiously looking to the administration of the day for 
reappointment; and the consequence would be that a third 
of the members would be under the influence of the executive." 
The desire was to render the upper house a thoroughly inde- 



of senate 
of fathers 
of 

Confed- 
eration 



^ At Quebec. 



2 Mackenzie, 307-308. 
[277] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

pendent body — one that would be in the best position to 
canvass dispassionately the measures of the lower house, 
and stand up for the public interests in opposition to hasty 
or partisan legislation.^ 

Conditions A senator can resign at any time by a writing 
that vacate m^jgj. j^jg hand addressed to the governor-general; 

SG£lt 111 

senate and the seat or a senator becomes vacant in any 
of the following cases: (i) If for two consecutive 
sessions of parliament he fails to attend the 
senate; ^ (2) if he becomes the subject or citizen 
of a foreign power; (3) if he is adjudged bank- 
rupt, or insolvent, or becomes a public defaulter; 
(4) if he is attainted of treason or convicted of 
felony or of any infamous crime; (5) if he ceases 
to be qualified in respect of property or residence. 
Another It is a constitutional fiction in Canada that 

consti- wages or salaries are not paid to senators or 

tutional ° ^ 

fiction members of the house of commons, or to members 
of the provincial legislatures. As a matter of fact 
wages and traveling expenses have been paid 
to legislators ever since the first legislature in 
Canada came into existence in Halifax in 1758. 
Otherwise the existence of popularly elected 

^ Mackenzie, 308. 

2 The seat in the senate of the oldest senator, Hon.AV. J. 
Macdonald, of British Columbia, has been declared, vacant 
by reason of his absence for two consecutive sessions. He 
occupied his seat for forty-four years, and was one of the 
half-dozen left of all the appointments made by Sir John A. 
Macdonald. The seat of Hon. Dr. J. E. Robertson, of Prince 
Edward Island, was declared vacant for the same reason, in 
the same motion. — Tribune, Winnipeg, April 29, 1915. 
[278] 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

legislatures would have been impossible. But 
payments to members of parliament at Ottawa, 
and of the provincial legislatures, are described 
in enactments and in parliamentary debate, 
as indemnities; and the constitutional fiction is 
that these payments are not in return for services 
rendered, but to recoup members for loss they 
may sustain in attending to their parliamentary 
duties. 

Senators and members of the house of commons salaries 
have always received equal indemnities. For ggj^^^^^g 
some years after Confederation the payment 
was $600 per session, with allowances for main- 
tenance on the journeys to and from Ottawa, and 
a mileage allowance of ten cents a mile. 

Several times between 1867 and 1905 the indem- Free 
nity was increased. For some years it stood at ^^j^ 
^1500; and in 1905 an act was passed which fixed and 
the payment at $2500 a session. At that time a ^^^ 
law was also passed under which senators and 
members of the house of commons travel free 
on all Canadian railways. They have also the 
privilege of franking letters and parcels through 
the mails, a privilege which members of parlia- 
ment at Westminster have not enjoyed since the 
penny post was established in the United Kingdom 
in 1840. During the session at Ottawa letters 
can be sent to senators and members of the house 
of commons free of postage. 



[279] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Throne 

In 

senate 



Scene of 
state cere- 
monies 



The bar 
of the 
senate 



V. The Chamber of the Senate 

The chamber of the senate, colloquially known 
as the red chamber, from the color of the uphol- 
stery and hangings, is modeled on the chamber of 
the house of lords at Westminster. There is no 
woolsack; for Canada has no lord chancellor 
to act as the presiding officer of the senate. But, 
as in the house of lords, there is a throne; for the 
senate chamber is the scene of the state cere- 
monial attending the opening and proroguing of 
parliament. 

The commons are summoned thither by the 
gentleman usher of the black rod, when the 
king's speech at the opening or closing of the 
session is about to be read in English and 
French by the governor-general. It is in the 
senate chamber also that the royal assent is 
given to bills that have gone through all their 
stages in both houses. 

The chair of the speaker of the senate is a little 
to the left of the dais on which stands the throne; 
and immediately in front of the chair is the table 
at which sit the clerk of the parliament and clerk 
of the senate, and the clerk assistant. The place 
of black rod is at the bar, at the entrance to the 
chamber; and it is at this bar that the speaker, 
the sergeant-at-arms, and the commons stand 
when they have responded to the summons of 
black rod to attend on the governor-general in 
the senate chamber. 
[ 280 ] 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

The chamber Is spacious and handsome, with 
large galleries for visitors — galleries which are 
crowded when the governor-general attends in 
state to open a new session of parliament. 

The house of commons at Ottawa followed the Seating 
seating plan long in use in the house of representa- °* 

• • senators 

tives, and still in use in the senate, at Washington. 
Each member sits at a desk. In the senate chairs 
are provided — a departure from the usage of 
the house of lords, where, as in the house of com- 
mons at Westminster, members sit on benches. 
The chairs, two deep, face each other the length 
of the chamber; and between the front rows there 
is a broad aisle extending from the throne to the 
bar. Beyond the bar is the antechamber, which 
is not accounted a part of the senate chamber. 
Senators who are supporters of the government 
sit, as at Westminster, to the right of the speaker. 
Members of the opposition sit to the left. 

Partly in accordance with long usage, and partly The 
in accordance with statute, the ministry at West- *^^^®* 
minster is divided — usually unevenly — between Snate^ 
the house of lords and the house of commons. 
Every member of the cabinet at Ottawa must 
by usage be either of the house of commons or 
of the senate.^ But neither by usage nor by law 

^ "'It was reserved for the Australian Commonwealth 
act (enacted at Westminster thirty-three years later than 
the enactment of the constitution of Dominion of Canada) 
expressly to state that a minister must become a member 
of the legislature within a prescribed time." — H. E. Egerton, 
"Federations within the British Empire," 123-124. 

[281] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

is it necessary that any member of the cabinet 
should be of the senate. There have been 
cabinets of which no member was of the senate.^ 
It is seldom that more than one or two members 
of the cabinet are of the upper house; and thus 
it comes about that in the senate chamber there 
is nothing that corresponds with the treasury 
bench in the house of commons. 
Govern- There is, however, always a leader for the 
^^T - government in the senate. The exposition of the 

leader m ° _ _ , '^ 

senate policies of the government is deputed to this 
leader; and it is his duty to pilot government 
bills through the upper house. 

Questions To the government leader in the senate inter- 
rogatories are also addressed; for questions to 
ministers, with all the advantages, direct and 
indirect, that accrue therefrom in a democratic 
form of government, are as much a parliamentary 
institution at Ottawa as they are at Westminster. 

Opposition There is also a leader of the opposition in the 
senate. The member to whom this position is 
assigned is elected in party caucus — a caucus 
that under normal conditions is held during the 
first days of a new parliament. If the new par- 
liament has brought with it a new government, 
^ "At Confederation, and for many years thereafter, 
ministers holding portfolios sat in the senate. There are 
none such now. Mr. Loughed leads the senate capably, 
but he is not the head of a department, and this state of things 
is not good for the country, nor good for the senate, nor does 
it tend to strengthen the constitution." — Gazette, Montreal 
(Canada's oldest Conservative newspaper), May 2, 1917. 

[282] 



leader in 
senate 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 



and if there was a member of the cabinet in the 
senate of the preceding parhament, the position 
of leader of the opposition goes, almost as a matter 
of course, to this senator. 

VI. A Merging of the Old and the New — 
Procedure in the Senate 

In the early years of Confederation, while the 
provincial spirit was still strong, it was often a 
complaint of members of the house of commons 
from the Maritime Provinces that members from 
Ontario and Quebec were too much inclined to 
regard the parliament of the Dominion as an 
enlargement and continuation of the legislature 
of the United Provinces. It was not unnatural 
that the members from what are now the central 
provinces should so regard the Dominion parlia- 
ment. It was in the assembly of the legislature 
of the United Provinces that the struggle for 
responsible government had been successfully 
waged. Success in that struggle had paved the 
way for Confederation. Conditions in the United 
Provinces had made Confederation imperative 
and greatly hastened its realization. 

The new parliament had been established in 
Ottawa, which in 1866 had become the capital 
of the United Provinces; and it was holding 
its sessions in a parliament house that had been 
built for the legislature of the United Provinces. 

Party lines as they were developed in the first 
five years of Confederation were similar to party 

C283] 



Dominion 
parlia- 
ment and' 
legis- 
lature of 
Upper 
and 
Lower 
Canada 



New oc- 
cupants of 
legislative 
building 
of United 
Provinces 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Party 
lines 
before 
and after 
Confed- 
eration 



Usages 
and 

procedure 
of old 
legislature 



Procedure 
in senate 



Speech 
from the 
throne 



Procedure 
on bills 



lines in the United Provinces. In the early 
years of Confederation the Liberal-Conservatives 
ranged themselves on the side of protective tariffs 
and against democratic electoral franchises, and 
the Liberals on the side of free trade and democ- 
racy, much as had been the alignment of political 
parties on these questions in the old legislature 
from 1 841 to 1866. 

The usages and procedure of the old legislature, 
moreover, were continued in the Dominion parlia- 
ment; and for members of the senate or house 
of commons who had been of the legislative 
council or assembly of the United Provinces, 
there was little outward change after the consti- 
tutional transition of 1867, 

The procedure and ceremonial of the senate of 
1 91 7 are little different from those of the legis- 
lative council of 1 841-1866; for procedure in the 
earlier era, as in the later, was modeled as closely 
as possible on that of the house of lords. 

A new session is opened with the speech from 
the throne — a speech which is prepared for the 
governor-general by the cabinet, and in which 
the legislative work of the session is briefly 
outlined. An address in reply is adopted, and 
the senate is then ready for any business that 
may be awaiting it. 

Bills originate in the senate — private members' 
bills and bills for divorce — rather than govern- 
ment bills. Leave to introduce a bill is given 
by the senate, and the bill is read a first time. 

[284] 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

These stages are formal. It is seldom that there 
is any discussion either of a motion for leave to 
introduce or at first reading. At second read- 
ing the general principle of a bill is discussed; 
and after being read a second time it goes to 
committee. 

The bill may go to committee of the whole 
house, or to a standing committee. In either 
case clauses and details are discussed in committee. 
It is reported back to the senate, with or without 
amendment, and is then ready for third reading. 
At this stage amendments are still possible, and 
it is also possible to reject a bill at third reading, 
or to refer it back to committee. 

After a bill is read a third time it is carried to House 
the house of commons, and if amendments are *™®'^<*" 

ments 

made there it is returned to the senate for con- to a 
currence or non-concurrence with the amend- f^,"**® 

. . bill 

ments. Discussion between the two houses over 
bills is by message, not by conference, as is the 
rule at Washington, and as was the usage at 
Westminster until 1851.^ 

Finance bills, or bills which, if they became Finance 
law, would impose a charge on the treasury of '''"^*° 
the Dominion, cannot originate in the senate. 
The provision that every bill for appropriating 
any part of the public revenue, or for imposing 
any tax, must originate in the house of commons, is 
intended to crystallize the constitutional practice 
at Westminster, and make it plain that the people 

1 Cf. Porritt, " Unreformed House of Commons," I, 560. 

[285] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Senate 
no part in 
molding 
tariff bills 



Senate 
much less 
active 
body 
than the 
house 



BUls for 
divorce 



hold the purse-strings.^ It is within the power 
of the senate to reject a finance bill, but it can 
make no amendment to a bill of this character. 

Unlike the senate at Washington, the Canadian 
senate has no part in originating or molding 
tariff legislation. Individual senators may have 
some influence with the cabinet when a tariff 
bill is being framed by a committee of the cabinet 
for acceptance first by the cabinet, and then by 
the house of commons. But as a body the senate 
has never had any influence in determining the 
details of that part of the National Policy of the 
Dominion that centers in the tariff and the bounty 
system. In such legislation, in practice, the only 
function of the senate is to give formal con- 
firmation to bills sent to it from the house of 
commons. 

As regards the initiation of bills, the activities 
of the senate are much less than those of the house 
of commons, where most of the members of the 
cabinet have their seats. In the forty-six years 
from 1867 to 1913, 5871 bills were passed by the 
house, and sent to the senate. In this period, 
1294 bills, originating in the senate, were sent 
to the house of commons. 

Bills for divorce, which by usage always 
originate in the senate, are included in the total 
of 1294 bills. In the first thirty years of Con- 
federation petitions for divorce were not numerous. 
In no year before 1900 did the number of divorce 
^ Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 95. 

[286] 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 



bills which received the royal assent exceed six.^ 
Petitions were few because in the Maritime 
Provinces and in British Columbia there are 
courts for matrimonial causes. These four prov- 
inces are in practice outside the jurisdiction of 
the senate as regards divorce. French Canada, 
from its large Roman Catholic population, 
presents no petitions for divorce. 

A few petitions come from the English-speaking 
and Protestant population of Quebec. Other- 
wise divorce petitions come only from the part 
of the Dominion that lies between the Ottawa 
River and the eastern foothills of the Rocky 
Mountains; and until 1900 there were not more 
than two and a half million people in this vast 
territory. Of these, two millions were in Ontario. 

Divorce bills increased in number between 
1900 and 1 91 6. There were fourteen in 1906; 
nineteen in 191 1; and in the last five years of 
this period there were from forty-five to fifty 
petitions at each session of parliament. At 
times the precincts of the senate were thronged 
with women who were lobbying for or against 
these divorce bills. ^ 

These bills, which are discussed at third read- 
ing, take up much of the time of the senate. In 
the common acceptance of the term they cannot 
be described as legislative measures. 

^ Cf. Canada Year Book, 191 1, 429. 

2 Cf. Northrup, "Divorce Bills in the Senate," GazettCt 
Montreal, January 11, 1916. 

C287] 



Area of 

Dominion 

from 

which 

petitions 

for 

divorce 

are 

presented 



Women 

as 

lobbyists 

for 

divorce 

bills 



Dis- 
cussion 
at third 
reading 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



The 

senate as 
a revising 
chamber 



Senate 
not an 
impartial 
chamber 
of review 



Spasmodic 
service as 
a revising 
body 



VII. The Senate as a Revising Body — Popular 
Indifference to its Existence and Proceedings 

It is a modern claim for the house of lords that 
it acts as a revising chamber. The same claim 
is made for the senate at Ottawa. To what 
extent the senate acts as a revising chamber can 
to some degree be judged from the record of its 
work from 1867 to 191 3. It amended 1246 of 
the 5871 bills it received from the house of com- 
mons, or 21.5 per cent. It rejected 113 bills, 
or 2 per cent.^ 

As furnishing a basis for the claim that the 
senate is of value as a revising body these figures 
covering a period of forty-six years are of only 
limited service. They cannot be taken at their 
face value. They cannot be accepted as a measure 
of the service of the senate as an independent 
and impartial chamber of review, because since 
1874, and especially since 1896, it has been well 
known that the vigilance of the senate in amend- 
ing or rejecting bills depends on conditions which 
should have no influence with a really independent 
or impartial chamber of revision. 

In the forty-two years from 1874 to 1916 — 
a period during which the Liberals were in power 
from 1874 to 1878, and again from 1896 to 1911, 
and the Conservatives from 1878 to 1896, and 
again from 191 1 onward — the vigilance of the 
senate as a chamber of revision was not continuous. 
^ Cf. Ross, "The Senate of Canada," 76. 

[288] 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

It was spasmodic. The senate was vigilant only 
in the 3^ears that followed a change of govern- 
ment. Its vigilance depended on whether or not 
the political complexion of its majority matched 
that of the administration as supported by the 
majority in the house of commons. 

Second chambers in the legislatures of the Second 
British North American provinces were contin- ^^^ ' 
uously unsatisfactory from 1791 to 1866. Par- contm- 
ticularly was this the case with the legislative ^^^^ 
councils of Upper and Lower Canada and of the factory 
United Provinces. ^ 

In framing the British North America act the Confed- 
Fathers of Confederation desired to create a ^g^^^^ 
senate that would begin a new and better era in to begin 
the history of upper chambers in Canada. The ^^^^ 
professed expectation of the framers of the con- upper 
stitution was that the upper chamber at Ottawa ^ 
would be "an independent body, moderating Canada 
between parties — a body of judicial temper, 
and of rarer atmosphere than the house of 
commons." - 

The expectation of 1S64-1S67 has not been even An 



expec- 
tation 



partially realized. The position of senator is 
a highly pri^-ileged one. He is free from indi^■id- not 
ual claims by constituents on his time and energy 

^ Cf. Durham's Report, II, 82; and H. L. Debates, June 
IS, 1854. 

- "The Round Table," III, 719. "The senate was intended 
to be the drag on the house of commons coach, a check upon 
hasty legislation arising out of feverish popular agitation." — 
Gazette, Montreal, May 2, 1917. 

[289] 



E\OLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Only five 
men of 
national 
fame In 
senate 
from 
1867 to 
1917 



Senators 
unknown 
to "the 
man in the 
street" 



during the parliamentar}' session. He takes no 
part in elections. Political propaganda has never 
made any large demands on his time. A senator 
is free constitutionally to play a bold, strong, 
and independent part in the political life of the 
Dominion. But privilege and freedom have been 
of no avail. Senators, as members of one division 
of parliament, have never played a prominent 
part, to saj' nothing of a bold or strong part, in 
Dominion poHtics. 

From Confederation to 191 7, George Brown, 
who was leader of the Liberal party in Ontario; 
Sir John J. C. Abbott, who was premier of the 
Dominion 1891-1892; Sir Mackenzie Bowell, 
who was premier from 1894 to 1896; Sir Oliver 
Mowat, who was premier of Ontario from 1872 
to 1896 and minister of justice at Ottawa from 
1896 to 1897; and Sir Richard Cartwright, who 
was minister of finance at Ottawa from 1874 to 
1878, and minister of trade and commerce from 
1896 to 191 1, were the only men of national fame 
who were of the senate. 

Over 300 senators — to be exact, 304 — were 
appointed in the years from 1867 to 1914.^ Not 
more than ten of them were of front rank in 
Dominion politics, or were men who, after Confed- 
eration, earned for themselves even mention in 
the political history- of Canada. Wrong, a writer 
on Canadian constitutional history of interna- 
tional fame, asserted in 1914 that the average 
1 Cf. Ross, 121-124. 

[290] 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

Canadian — Balfour's "the man in the street" — 
would be puzzled if asked to draw up a list of 
half a dozen of the senators at Ottawa.^ A 
similar statement might have been made at any 
time in the forty years that preceded the great 
war. 

Except for an agitation against the senate. Popular 
carried on by the Liberal party for a few years ™<^^'- 

f . ' ence to 

before the Liberals took office in 1896, the people senate 
of Canada have been continuously indifferent ^^ ^^ 

. proceed- 

to the senate and its proceedmgs. Canadian ings 

newspapers for the most part ignore its debates. 

There is, in practice, no press gallery in the ignored 

senate. There is ample accommodation for re- ^^ 

^ . , news- 

porters. But the newspapers will not assign men papers 

to the senate. A reporter, who is a salaried 
employee of the senate, furnishes, free of cost, 
summaries of the debates to all the newspaper 
correspondents at Ottawa. His work is of little 
public value; for nine out of ten of the daily 
newspapers regard senate debates as not worth 
the cost of telegraph tolls. Similar neglect is the 
fate of the senate with the weekly and semi- 
weekly newspapers all over the Dominion. 

"A measure or criterion that we have of the Popular 
value which is placed upon speeches by members "^"^^r- 
of parliament,'* said Cartwright, government realized 
leader in the senate, in 191 1, "is the sjmopsis ^^ 
which we find in the public press from day to 

^ Cf. Wrong, "Second Chambers in Canada," The Ncm 
Statesman, London, February' 7, 1914. 

[291] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Reason 
for 

popular 
Indiffer- 
ence 



day as to what took place in this chamber. We, 
in this chamber, have appropriated a very sub- 
stantial sum for the purpose of disseminating to 
the press a synopsis of our deliberations. And 
what do we find? We find that the value placed 
by the press upon these deliberations is indicated 
in about a quarter of a column in the ordinary 
newspaper of the day, and sometimes not even 
that." 1 

The reason for popular indifference to the senate 
is that its creation in 1867 did not begin a better 
era in the history of second chambers in Canada. 
The senate, at no time since 1867, has aroused 
such intense popular hostility as was aroused by 
the legislative councils of Upper and Lower 
Canada of 1791-1840. It has never flouted 
popular opinion. Nor has it ever entered on a 
contest with the house of commons over any 
measure in which there was keen popular interest. 

Unlike the legislative councils of Upper and 
Lower Canada, the senate has always been free 
legislature of oifice-holders. Unlike the legislative councils 
under the constitution of 1791, also, it has never 
attempted the position of predominant partner. 
None the less, part of Newcastle's character- 
ization of the legislative council of the United 
Provinces in 1854 — his insistence that the 
council did not exercise the influence in the 
province that it ought to possess — might be 
applied to the senate from 1867 to 1917. 
^ Senate Debates, March 29, 191 1, p. 508. 

[292] 



Never an 
ambitious 
branch of 



senate 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

The senate admittedly has not exercised the Class of 
influence in the Dominion or in parliament that ™^° ^*^° 
was expected by the Fathers of Confederation. ^ appoint- 
There are no pubHc records of refusals to accept ™^°* ^° 
nomination to the senate as there are to accept 
membership in the legislative council of the United 
Provinces. There is never any lack of claimants 
for appointment — claimants with efficient press 
agents — when vacancies occur in the senate 
owing to death or to the automatic ending of the 
careers of senators in consequence of failure — 
mostly due to old age — to attend its sessions. 

It is a matter of history, however, that a seat 
in the cabinet has seldom been offered to a 
senator; and since 1871, when administrations 
at Ottawa began to have power to make nomi- 
nations, it has been notorious that the men most 
anxious to become senators — the men to whom 
about ninety-eight per cent of the nominations 
went between 1871 and 1916 — were men who 
regarded a senatorship and a life salary as their 
due for services in Dominion or provincial pol- 
itics to the party in power. 

^ " For one cause or another the senate has scarcely had fair 
play. When formed, the intention was that it should be 
non-partisan, a sort of judicial tribunal supervising and re- 
viewing the legislation of the commons with an eye single to 
the merits of that legislation. In the course of years this 
purpose has somewhat failed." — Gazette, Montreal, May 2, 
1917. 



[293] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

VIII. The Senate and the Spoils System — 
Friction between the House and the Senate 

Senator- "From the first," writes Wrong, "appointments 
ship a ^Q ^l^g senate came under the full control of the 

crown 

of party mechanism of the party. The security of the 

service position for life, and the freedom from the labors 

of an election, have made a senatorship a desirable 

crown of party service; and to this use the 

office has been put. The view is generally 

current in Canada, that only elderly men should 

be appointed to the senate." ^ 

Only party "Men who have given long service In the house 

interests ^f commons, " coutlnues Wrong, " sometimes claim 

con- '. 1 • 1 • • 

sidered a senatorship for their declining years. Other 
claims are from those who have given similar 
service in the party organization, or it may be 
have contributed liberally to the party funds. 
No government. Liberal or Conservative, has 
made any serious effort to save the post of senator 
as a reward for any other kind of public service, 
and in the present condition of public thought It 
would be quixotic to expect that anything but 
party interests should be considered." ^ 

^ At the time the Parliamentary Guide for 1912 was 
compiled, four senatorships were vacant. Of the 83 senators 
then on the roll, two were under 50 years of age; 14 were 
between 50 and 60; 24 between 60 and 70; 32 over 70 and 
under 80; and 11 over 80 years. There have been instances 
of men of 95 and 96 in attendance as senators. 

2 Wrong, " Second Chambers in Canada," The New States- 
man, February 7, 1914. 

[294] 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

From the early years of Confederation appoint- To 
ments to the senate were always regarded as the ^'^°^^ 

. . belong 

patronage of a political party. The principle that the 
to the victors belong the spoils is nearly as old in ^^^^ 
Canada as it is in the United States; and in the 
years before the war at Ottawa its application 
was almost as wide as it ever was at Washington. 
From Confederation to 191 8, when, as a war 
measure, there was some reform in the distribu- 
tion of patronage, the principle was continuously 
applied to the speakership of the house of com- 
mons and of the senate,^ and to appointments 
to the higher positions on the clerical staff of 
parliament, to appointments as judges, and to 
many of the prized positions in the civil service 
of the Dominion. The principle was also applied 
to a large range of government purchases of sup- 
plies, and particularly to contracts for printing 
and advertising, which went only to newspapers 
which supported the political party in power.- 

1 The speaker of the senate, who is paid a salary of ^40x20 
and provided with an apartment within the parliament build- 
ing, is appointed by the government. The speaker of the house 
of commons, who also receives ^4000 a year and is provided 
with an apartment, is elected by the house at the opening 
of a new parliament. But the successful candidate for the 
chair is in practice always nominated by the government. 

^ On the order paper of the house of commons on April 
25, 1917, there was notice of a resolution to be moved from the 
opposition benches condemning the spoils system. It read 
as follows: "That, in the opinion of this house, the prevailing 
system of party patronage constitutes a menace to honest 

[295] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Senate The spoils system was most rigidly adhered 

and the ^^ jj^ appointments to the senate. "In neariy 
system half a century," writes a Canadian critic of the 
senate, "the claims of party have been ignored 
in only a single appointment. The Canadian 
constitution reposes a vast patronage in govern- 
ments. The situation in Canada is exactly the 
situation that would exist in the United States 
if the president appointed every senator, every 
state governor, and every federal and state judge 
throughout the Union. This is perhaps the reason 
why changes of government occur so seldom in 
the Dominion. The prospect of a life seat in the 
senate attracts many powerful supporters in the 
constituencies. It assists discipline, and reduces 
contumacy in the house of commons." ^ 
Friction Friction between the senate and the house of 

between commons is infrequent. It occurred in the 
and quarter of a century before the great war only 

house jj^ ^j^g £j.g^ fg^ years of the Liberal govern- 

Infrequent i • i r r 

ment of 1896-1911, and m the first few years of 
the Conservative government that was in power 
from 191 1 to 191 7. In each case the friction was 
traceable to the fact that both political parties 

and efficient government, incites to great waste of resources 
and extravagance, in its application to expenditures and 
appointments for military purposes, greatly injures the proper 
fulfillment of our duty to the nation, tends inevitably to cor- 
rupt and lower the tone of public morals, and should forth- 
with be eliminated from our federal administration." 
1 "The Round Table," III, 719-722. 

[296] 



from 
1867 to 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

had appointed none but partisans to the senate 
when the appointing power was in their control. 

The first seventy-two members of the senate Appoint- 
were appointed by royal proclamation. These ^^^^ 
appointments had been agreed upon before the senate 
new constitution became effective. From 1867 
to 1873 a Conservative government, with Mac- 1873 
donald as premier, was in power. As vacancies 
due to death occurred, and as additional prov- 
inces came into Confederation — Manitoba in 
1870 and British Columbia in 1871 — the ap- 
pointments to the senate were made by 
Macdonald. Thirty-two senators had been so 
appointed before Macdonald went out of office 
in 1873. Only one was of the Liberal party.^ 

A Liberal government, with Alexander Mac- Liberals 
kenzie of Ontario as premier, was in power from |°^ ^. 
1873 to 1878; and in these years sixteen senators, 
all of the Liberal party, were appointed. Mac- 
donald and the Conservatives were returned to 
power in 1878, and the Conservatives were con- 
tinuously in office until 1896. In these eighteen 
years eighty-five senators, all Conservatives, were 
appointed by the successive Conservative govern- 
ments. The result was that when the Liberal 
government, with Laurier as premier, came into 
power in 1896, it was confronted with the fact that 
out of eighty-three senators, only thirteen, all ap- 
pointed before 1878, were of the Liberal party. 

^ Cf. Willison, "Some Political Leaders in the Canadian 
Federation," 50. 

C297] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



The 
position 
reversed, 
1896-1911 



Partisan 
activity 
of senate 



The Liberals were in power from 1896 to 191 1. 
Eighty-one senators, all Liberals/ were appointed 
in these fifteen years; and when the Conserva- 
tives, with Robert L. Borden as premier, took 
office in 191 1, of the eighty-seven senators only 
twenty-two were Conservatives. 

After each of these changes in government in 
1896 and 191 1, when the majority of the senate 
realized that for four or five years, at least, it 
would be in opposition to the government, and 
to the majority in the house of commons, there 
was a quickening of activity in rejecting and 
amending government bills. The power of re- 
vision was exercised from 1896 to 1901, and from 
191 1 to 1916, with a vigilance that was altogether 
lacking in the longer periods when the majority 
of the senate was of the same party as the major- 
ity of the house of commons and the government. 



Meas- 
ures of 
Liberal 
govern- 
ment 
rejected 



IX. Attitude of Political Parties towards the Senate 

In the years 1 896-1901, during which the Liberal 
government was confronted with a hostile majority 
in the senate, the senate rejected four or five 

^ "Sir John Macdonald appointed John Macdonald, of 
Toronto, to the upper chamber. But the Conservative 
leader never found any other Liberal with the necessary 
qualifications for a senatorship. From 1878 to 1902 no 
Liberal was appointed chairman of a senate committee. We 
cannot trace to Liberal governments — 1 874-1878 and 1896- 
191 1 — even one such error as Sir John Macdonald com- 
mitted." — Willison, "Some Political Leaders in the Con- 
federation of Canada," 50. 

C298] 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 

government bills. One was a measure for extend- 
ing the Intercolonial Railway — a government 
undertaking — from Levis to Montreal. Another 
bill, rejected in 1897, would have authorized the 
construction of a government railway from the 
Stickene River to Teslin Lake — a railway which 
was designed to form part of the rail and water 
route to Dawson City. 

The senate between 191 1 and 1916, when a Same 
Conservative government was faced with a ^^'^ *°' 
Liberal majority, rejected six or seven bills, or uresof 
so amended bills as to make them unacceptable Consenr- 

ative 

to the house of commons and the government, govem- 
One of these measures was a bill, passed by the ^^^^ 
house of commons in 191 2, under which Canada 
was to provide three battleships as an addition 
to the British navy. A second bill, also in 191 2, 
was for the creation of a permanent tariff com- 
mission; and a third, passed by the house in 
1914, was to provide for increases in the salaries 
of railway mail clerks. 

With harmonious majorities in the senate and Eras of 
house of commons, government bills are never **^°°y 
rejected, or even amended in any way that is docuity 
unacceptable to the government. At these times 
there is not a more docile second chamber in the 
English-speaking world than the senate at Ottawa. 

At these times its sittings for public business a "me 
are not continuous from day to day like the ^"°* 

. . house of 

sittmgs of the house of commons. Sittings commons 
seldom extend beyond the dinner hour; for almost 

[299] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Senators 

never 

resign 



Waiting 
Ust 



the sole business of the senate as regards gov- 
ernment bills is to say ditto to the house of 
commons.^ Only a new government, which is 
temporarily without a majority in the senate, 
need fear the power that the senate can exercise 
as a chamber of revision. 

The incoming governments of 1896 and 191 1 
strongly objected to the hostility encountered 
by some of their bills in the senate. So did the 
supporters of these governments in the house of 
commons and in the press. But time is on the 
side of the government.^ Senators never resign 
except when, as sometimes happens, they are 
appointed lieutenant-governors of provinces. But 
most of them are elderly. Death or failure to 
attend for two consecutive parliamentary ses- 
sions creates on an average five or six vacancies 
a year. 

No matter which political party is in power, 
there is always a long waiting list for appoint- 
ment to the senate. On the list are names of men 
in the house of commons, who are tired of close 
attendance on the house, with the physical and 
nervous strain it entails, and tired also of contested 
elections and of being at the beck and call of 
constituents. 

^ " If there be any pertinent criticism to be made of the 
senate, it is that the chamber has fallen into a state of desue- 
tude. It has become in a way a mere recording body, a *me 
too' machine. This condition is far from desirable." — 
Gazette, Montreal, May 2, 1917. 

2 Cf. Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 102. 

[300] 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 



Men are also on the list who have held cabinet 
office in provincial administrations, and who are 
out of a job. Others are owners or editors of 
newspapers, who conceive that a seat in the senate, 
a salary of ^2500 a year, a luxurious clubhouse 
in Ottawa, free of annual dues, and free railway 
travel over the Dominion, would be some return 
for the services they have rendered to their 
political party. 

As vacancies in the senate occur or come into 
sight, the agitation for senate reform, growing 
out of irritation over the rejection of the bills of 
a new government, completely dies away. The 
j demand ceases to interest the politicians in power 
as the procession of the government's nominees 
into the senate increases in length.^ 

The Conservatives were in a minority of forty- 
three in the senate in 191 1, when the Borden 
government was organized. New appointments 
by May, 1914, had decreased the adverse majority 
to six. "Nature," wrote a Canadian chronicler 
of the changes in the senate from 191 1 to 1914, 
"may be fairly depended upon to wipe out the 
surplus of Liberal senators before next session; ^ 
and then with the Conservatives in control, the 
senate can be counted quite a model body, which 
needs no change." ^ 

1 Cf. Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 102-103. 

2 Deaths of senators were so frequent in the first six years 
of the Borden government that by April, 1917, the minority 
of forty-three of 191 1 had become a majority of eight. 

' Mercury, Renfrew, Ontario, May 8, 1914. 

C301] 



Men on 
the 

waiting 
list 



Evanes- 
cent 

demands 
for 

senate 
refonn 



Nature 
settles 
diffi- 
culties 
with the 
senate 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

And is This was the attitude of the Conservative 

non- government, and its house of commons supporters, 
^*^'^ toward senate reform after nature and the govern- 
ment had adjusted the balance of power in the 
senate. The attitude of a Liberal government is 
precisely the same when once it is in possession 
of a majority in the senate.^ 
Senate The Liberals came into power in 1896 after a 

reform general election in which they had gone to the 
Kbetais constituencies on the Ottawa program of 1893. 
m power j^g ^ew government chafed for four or five years 
under the disadvantage of an adverse majority 
in the senate. But as vacancies occurred the 
government filled them with its nominees; and 
despite the fact that the resolution of 1893, 
pledging the Liberal party to a reform of the 
senate,^ was submitted to the Ottawa convention 
by three men who were afterwards of the cabinets 
of 1 896-1 91 1, not a word was heard from the 
government about senate reform during the 
fifteen years that the Liberals were in power.» 

1 " Since advocacy of senate reform Is the strict and In- 
alienable prerogative of oppositions, the senate as now con- 
stituted seems to rest upon a reasonably stable foundation. 
— Wllllson, "Some Political Leaders In the Canadian Federa- 
tion," 51. • r\ 

2 Cf. Official report of the Liberal convention, Uttaw, 

^ ? "Notwithstanding the fact that one of the planks of thl 
Liberal platform In 1893 was the reform of the senate, during 
the whole fifteen years the Liberal party were in power, there 
was no reform of the senate other than through the efforts 

C302] 



:hP 



PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE 



The senate has been of some little service 
in improving details of bills sent to it from the 
house of commons. For five provinces also it 
has served as a divorce court. These are its 
public services. 

Two distinctly party services have also been 
rendered by the senate. Twice since 1896 its 
existence has made it possible for a political 
party, defeated at a general election, to harass 
and thwart a new government. Its existence also 
has added quite largely to the patronage of 
governments, and has thus enabled governments 
to keep in line and under party discipline a far 
larger number of active and office-seeking parti- 
sans than is represented by the actual number of 
appointments made by any government to the 
senate. 

The senate, chiefly by its failure to realize the 
professed expectations of the Fathers of Con- 
federation, by its failure to make a beneficent 
impression on politics in Canada, or at any time 
in its fifty years' existence to convince the people 
of Canada that it was of any possible public 
usefulness,^ is, from the standpoint of students 

of Divine Providence. No action along that line v^as taken 
by the government or by any member supporting the govern- 
ment, with the exception of Mr. Maclntyre." — W. M. 
German, Liberal member from Ontario, in debate on constitu- 
tion of senate, house of commons, May 7, 1917. 

^ "W. M. German's proposal in the house of commons 
today to reform the senate by making it elective instead of 
selective, met with little favor. The mover of the resolution 

C303] 



PubUc 
services 
of senate 



Its 

services 

to 

political 

parties 



Its 

peculiar 
Interest 
to 

students 
of parlia- 
mentary 
institu- 
tions 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

of the working of parliamentary institutions, the 
most interesting second chamber in the EngHsh- 
speaking world. It is especially so, when it is 
kept in mind that it represents the fourth attempt 
since 1791 to establish a second chamber, modeled 
after the house of lords, in the portion of the 
British empire that is now comprised in the 
Dominion of Canada, 

and all others who took part in the debate paid tribute to the 
personnel of the senate, past and present, but regretted that 
it had ceased to be an active legislative body, and in a measure 
lost the confidence of the people." — Ottawa correspondence, 
Gazette, Montreal, May 7, 19 17. 



C304] 



I 



CHAPTER XII 

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

N the first session of the first parliament of Number 
the Dominion there were i8i members of °* 

members 
the house of commons. Ontario was represented 

by 82 members; Quebec by 65; Nova Scotia 
by 19; and New Brunswick by 15. After the 
redistribution of representation in 1914, the num- 
ber stood at 234.^ In 1867, when only four 
provinces were in Confederation, the population 
of the Dominion was 3,250,000; at the census 
of 191 1, on which the redistribution of 1914 
was based, it was 7,206,000. 

In the intervening forty-four years two of the 
old British North American provinces, British 
Columbia and Prince Edward Island, had come 
into the Dominion; and parliament at Ottawa, by 
virtue of amendments to the constitution which 
had increased its powers, had created the prov- 
inces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, 
and had conferred on these provinces, and also 
on the Yukon Territory, the right to represen- 
tation in the house of commons. 

^ Cf. An act to readjust the representation in the house 
of commons, assented to June 12, 1914 — 4-5 George V., 
c. .51. 

[305] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



I. The Distribution of Representation 

These additions to the membership of the house 
were made in strict accordance with section 51 
of the British North America act, the section! 
which defines the powers of parHament in the' 
apportionment of representation among the sev- 
eral provinces. 

Section 51 — 2l disturbing section since 1903 
to the older provinces, which, under its strict pro- 
visions, must submit to reductions in their repre- 
sentation — reads as follows: 

On the completion of the census in 1871, and on each 
subsequent decennial census, the representation of the 
four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in 
such a manner, and from such time, as the parliament 
of Canada shall from time to time provide, subject and 
according to the following rules: 

(i) Quebec shall have the fixed number of 65 
members. 

(2) There shall be assigned to each of the other prov- 
inces such a number of members as will bear the same 
proportion to the number of its population (ascertained 
at such census) as the number 65 bears to the number 
of the population of Quebec (so ascertained). 

(3) In the computation of the number of members 
for a province, a fractional part, not exceeding one half 
of the whole number requisite for entitling the province 
to a member shall be disregarded; but a fractional part 
exceeding one half of that number shall be equivalent 
to the whole number. 

(4) On any such readjustment, the number of mem- 
bers for a province shall not be reduced unless the pro- 
portion which the number of the population of the prov- 
ince bore to the number of the aggregate population of 

[306] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the 
number of members for the province is ascertained 
at the then latest census to be diminished by one 
twentieth part or upwards. 

(5) Such readjustment shall not take effect until 
the termination of the then existing parliament. 

At each decennial redistribution of represen- Losses 
tation, parliament when it enters on this task ^^^ 
is confronted with these provisions of the con- bution 
stitution; and when, as in 1903 and again in 1914, 
the older and more settled provinces of Ontario, 
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward 
Island know, from the census returns, that they 
are to lose some part of their representation, 
there is a reminder from the minister who intro- 
duces the redistribution bill that no blame can 
rest on parliament for the losses that provinces 
must undergo. 

II. Quebec the Pivotal Province 

"We have," said Laurier, premier of the Liberal Pariia- 

administrations of 1896-1911, when he intro 

duced the bill of 1903, "only to take the pro- in 

visions of section Ci of the constitution, and ^°^<^*^ 
•^ ^ redls- 

the figures of the census, and find the result, tribution 
In this matter parliament is not a free agent. 
It has no discretion to exercise. It is simply 
the instrument and creature of the law. In 
this particular bill we have only to take the 
result of the census of 1901, and make the redis- 
tribution accordingly. We give to each province 

[307] 



ment 
not free 



bUls 



Quebec 
quota 
unalter- 
able 



Unit of 
repre- 
sentation 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

the number to which it is entitled, some having less, 
some more, but all being bound by the same rule." ^ 

Quebec is the only province which can look 
on without direct concern when a redistribution 
bill is before the house of commons. Increased 
representation for the new provinces, and for 
British Columbia, the four provinces which, 
after 1900, attracted much of the stream of im- 
migration, may lessen the influence and weight of 
the French province at Ottawa. But no matter 
what the census returns may show, Quebec's 
quota of sixty-five remains unalterable, unless 
there is an amendment to section 51 — an amend- 
ment of which during the first half-century of 
Confederation there was not even a hint at Ottawa. 

In the redistribution of representation Quebec 
is thus the pivotal province. "Taking the popu- 
lation of Quebec at 2,003,232," said Borden, 
premier of the Conservative government that 
was responsible for the redistribution bill of 
1914, "and dividing it by 65, we obtain the unit 
of 30,819. Applying this unit to the popu- 
lation of the various provinces, we find that 
Alberta is entitled to a membership of 12.12 — 
the decimal is disregarded, and Alberta receives 
a membership of 12. In the case of British 
Columbia, the number is 12.70. The decimal 
being in excess of five, British Columbia receives 
a membership of 13." ^ 



i 



C308] 



* H. C. Debates, March 31, 1903. 
2 Ibid., February 10, 19 14. 



1 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



The territories west of the Great Lakes came 
into the parliamentary representation at the 
redistribution of 1892. Four members were 
then assigned to what were called the northwest 
territories. It was 1905 before portions of these 
territories were organized as the provinces of 
Saskatchewan and Alberta. The changes in 
the representation brought about since 1892 
by the operation of section 51 of the British 
North America act, and by the amendments made 
to it at Westminster in 1871 and 1886, are recorded 
in the accompanying table: 



Changes 
In 

repre- 
sentation 
since 
1892 



Province 

Ontario 

Quebec 

Nova Scotia 

New Brunswick 

Manitoba 

British Columbia .... 
Prince Edward Island 
Northwest Territories 

Yukon 

Alberta 

Saskatchewan 

Totals 



1892 


1903 


1905 


92 


86 


86 


6,S 


6.S 


6.? 


20 


18 


18 


14 


13 


13 


7 


10 


10 


6 


7 


7 


S 


4 


4 


4 


10 






I 


I 

7 
10 


213 


214 


221 



I9I4 



82 

65 

16 

II 
IS 

13 

3 

I 

12 
16 



234 



The Dominion parliament has left to the pro- Electoral 
vincial legislatures the determination of the *'^" 

chlsGS 

franchises on which members of the house of deter- 
commons shall be elected. This is in accordance mi^edby 
with the federal principle — the principle which vinciai 
from the first has prevailed in the United States. •^^^ 
To the state legislatures also has been assigned, 

[309] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

from the first, the division of the states into 
congressional districts. 

Canada has not followed the example of the 
United States in the redistribution of representa- 
tion. It has never permitted the provincial 
legislatures to map out the electoral divisions or 
constituencies from which representatives of the 
province are elected to the house of commons. 

III. The Era of the Gerrymander 

The first three redistributions of representation 
— those of 1872, 1883, and 1892 — were made 
by Conservative governments, and in the re-ar- 
rangement of the constituencies in 1882 and 1892 
the Liberal minorities in the house of commons 
were not permitted any part. The Liberal 
opposition, led in 1882 by Edward Blake and in 
1892 by Wilfred Laurier, had no more say in the 
redisricting of the provinces than they had in 
the redistribution of seats at Westminster which 
accompanied the extension of the parliamentary 
franchise in the United Kingdom in 1884. 

The bill of 1882, allotting each province its 
quota of members, was introduced in the house 
of commons. As part of the bill there was a 
schedule of the electoral divisions in each prov- 
ince. It was useless for the opposition to take 
a map, as they could have done, and show how 
glaringly some constituencies had been gerry- 
mandered in the interest of the Conservative 
party. The decennial redistribution of repre- 

[310] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

sentation was regarded in those days as offering 
an opportunity to advance the interests of the 
political party that was in power. 

During the Conservative regime of 1 878-1 896 "Hiving 
there was no pretense to fairness in the readjust- ^^^ „ 
ment of the parliamentary constituencies. The 
phrase, long in use in Dominion politics, "hiving 
the grits," had its origin in those years. It 
described the throwing together of communities 
that were predominantly Liberal, without heed 
to county boundaries, to make other constituen- 
cies safely Conservative. Gerrymandering began 
in 1872. It was particularly rampant at the 
redistributions of 1882 and 1892.^ 

At no time in the first fifty years of Confeder- Party 
ation was party bitterness more marked than ^^^' 
in the years from 1878 to 1896. Much of the 
bitterness, a bitterness which characterized de- 
bates in the house of commons, and political 
discussions on the platform and in the press, 
grew out of the gerrymanders. It was partly 
attributable to other partisan legislation affect- 
ing elections by the Conservative government. 
It was partly attributable to a manipulation of 
electoral franchises in 1885, which was not cor- 
rected until 1898, when a Liberal government 
repealed the act of 1885 and established the 

^ "Gerrymandering is a Yankee institution, a Yankee in- 
vention which the National Policy — the policy of a high 
tariff — does not keep out of Canada." — Sir William Mulock, 
Ottawa Liberal convention, June 21, 1893. 

[311] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

principle that under the federal system the elec- 
toral franchises must be determined, not by the 
federal parliament, but by the legislatures of the 
provinces. 

The Liberals persistently denounced the gerry- 
manders when the bills of 1872, 1882, and 1892 
were before parliament. They were denounced 
also at the general elections of 1882, 1887, and 
1891; and in 1893, when the Liberal national 
convention was held at Ottawa, a resolution was 
adopted that committed the Liberal party to a 
reform in the method of redistributing the prov- 
inces for representation in the house of commons. 

^'To put an end to this abuse, to make the house 
of commons a fair exponent of public opinion, 
and to preserve the historic continuity of coun- 
ties," continued the resolution, "it is desirable 
that in the formation of electoral divisions, 
county boundaries should be preserved, and that 
in no case should parts of different counties be 
put in one electoral division." ^ 

IV. The Reform of IQOJ 

At the general election in 1896 the Liberals 
were returned to power. In 1903, for the first 
time in the history of the Dominion, a Liberal 
government was responsible for framing and 
carrying through parliament a bill for a redis- 
tribution of the representation. The government 

1 Official Report, Ottawa Liberal convention, 129. 
[312] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



availed itself to the full of the opportunity to 
fulfill the pledge made in the years when the 
Liberals were in opposition. 

We on this side of the house — said Laurier, when he intro- 
duced the bill in the house of commons — have always com- 
plained that in previous redistributions the opposition was 
unfairly treated. In 1892 we proposed a conference over the 
bill — a conference at which there should be representation of 
both political parties. But though our proposition was not 
accepted, we do not intend to depart from the principle which 
we then laid down. What we claimed for ourselves when we 
were in a minority, we are now ready to grant to our opponents 
when they are in a minority. 

There is no schedule to this bill. If this bill is accepted by 
our friends on the other side of the house, we intend, after it 
has been debated, and read a second time, to refer it to a special 
committee composed of seven members, on which the opposition 
will be represented by three, to be selected by themselves. 
We propose to invite our friends now sitting on the opposition 
benches to meet us in the committee room, and there discuss 
with us the division of the constituencies which shall be 
empowered to elect the members of this house.^ 

The complete fulfillment by the Liberal govern- 
ment in 1903 of a pledge which had been given 
by the Liberal party when it was in opposition, 
ended permanently, it would seem, the scandals 
of the gerrymander. The Conservatives were 
in opposition from 1896 to 191 1. But from 1903 
to 191 1 they had no grievance with regard to 
the arrangement of electoral divisions; and in 
1914, when a Conservative government was 



Partisan 
redis- 
tributions 
recalled 



Electoral 

map 

arranged 

by 

confer- 



Conserv- 
atives 
in 1914 
also 
adopt 
confer- 
ence 
plan 



^ H. C. Debates, March 31, 1903. 



C 313 II 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

responsible for a redistribution bill, the precedent 
of 1903 was followed in all details. 

The bill was introduced by Borden. Again no 
schedule was attached; and after the bill had 
been read a second time, the readjustment of 
the electoral divisions was relegated to a special 
committee on which were four representatives 
of the majority in the house of commons and 
three of the Liberal opposition.^ 

V. Inequalities in Electoral Divisions 

Equal electoral divisions have never been 
attempted by either Conservative or Liberal 
governments. Favorable treatment has always 
been accorded to the rural divisions. Under the 
apportionment of 1903, Soulanges, a rural division 
of Quebec, with a population of 9400, had one 
member of the house of commons, and there was 
only one for Maisonneuve, a manufacturing and 
residential suburb of Montreal, which according 
to the census of 1901 had a population of 170,987. 
Lisgar, a rural division of Manitoba, had a popu- 
lation of 23,501. In Winnipeg, which, like 
Lisgar, had then one member, the population 
was 128,157.2 

Both political parties accept the principle of 
a larger unit for urban than for rural constituen- 
cies. Borden recalled this fact when he was 

1 Cf. H. C. Debates, February 10, 1914. 

2 Ibid., February 10, 19 14. 

[314] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



piloting the redistribution act of 191 4 through 
the house of commons. 

It is said — the premier reminded the house — that in a 
city there ought to be a higher unit, for the reason that a city 
possesses greater solidarity and compactness. Its interests 
are more uniform, and they can make themselves felt more 
effectually and cogently than the interests of a rural constit- 
uency. It is said also that many men who represent rural 
constituencies reside in the cities, and in that way the cities 
have a certain voice in the legislature which is denied to rural 
constituencies. 

Importance also has been laid by some members of this 
house upon the argument that there is perhaps a more stable 
interest in those who dwell upon the land than is to be found 
in the case of a certain floating element of city population. 
Finally there is the English principle of community of 
interest, compactness and historic association — a principle 
that is always regarded in British redistribution bills. "^ 

These arguments in favor of a smaller unit 
of population for rural than for urban constit- 
uencies were accepted and indorsed by Laurier. 

Without going into all the reasons — he said — there is 
one supreme reason. It is that in a country like Canada, 
where there is a very large territory with a sparse popu- 
lation, if you give the same unit of population to cities and 
counties, in rural constituencies you would have such a large 
area of territory as to be almost impossible to cover. That is 
quite sufficient to justify the principle which has been adopted 
on every occasion on which we have had a redistribution. 

Unlike the older universities of England, Ireland, and 
Scotland, none of the fourteen universities of Canada elects 
a member to the house of commons. It was intended by the 
legislature of Upper Canada that there should be a university » 

1 H. C. Debates, February 10, 1914. 

C315] 



Com- 
munity 
of 

interest 
and 
historic 
asso- 
ciations 



Large 
rural 
divi- 
sions 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

constituency in that province. An act was passed in 1820 
(Geo. Ill, c. II § IV, St. of Upper Canada) by which it was 
provided "that whenever an university shall be organized, 
and in operation as a seminary of learning in this province, 
and in conformity to the rules and statutes of similar insti- 
tutions in Great Britain, it shall and may be lawful for the 
governor to declare by proclamation the tract of land ap- 
pendant to such university, and whereupon the same is 
situated, to be a town or township, and that such town or 
township so constituted, shall be represented by one member." 
"No person," continues the section, "shall be permitted 
to vote at any such election for a member to represent the 
said university in parliament, who besides the qualification 
now by law required shall not also be entitled to vote in the 
convocation of the said university." There was, however, 
no election of a member for the university between 1820 
and the union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1840. At 
the union of the provinces there was no mention of univer- 
sity representation, and no suggestion of it at Confederation.^ 

With only three or four exceptions, all the 
234 electoral divisions are single-member con- 
stituencies. Divisions of counties are known as 
"ridings," a term that has been in use in British 
parliamentary geography at least since 1821, 
when the right to elect two members was trans- 
ferred from the long notoriously corrupt borough 
of Grampound to the West Riding of Yorkshire. 

The term "division" is applied only in cities 
in Canada which return three or more members. 
Electoral divisions are not numbered, as in the 
United States. Geographical names are used, 
such as Toronto East, or Toronto West; and 

^ H. C. Debates, February 17, 1914. 
[316] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



such names as Algoma, Frontenac, Two Moun- 
tains, Antigonish, Pontiac, and Yale Caribou 
are given the ridings of counties. 

As a member of the house of commons must 
never be mentioned in debate by name, but always 
referred to as the honorable member for Pon- member 
tiac or whatever consituency he represents, both **'"" 
a new and an old world flavor is imparted to de- 
bates by giving names instead of numbers to all 
the constituencies that elect members to Ottawa. 



"The 

honor- 
able 



VL Unsuccessful Experiment with a Uniform 
Dominion Franchise 

At Confederation a large measure of freedom 
was conferred on the Dominion parliament in 
regard to the franchises on which the house of 
commons at Ottawa is elected. By section 41 
of the British North America act, it was provided 
that until the parliament of Canada otherwise 
decided the electoral laws of the provinces should 
apply to the election of members of the house 
of commons. 

The year of the passage of the British North 
America act was the year in which, for the first 
time in modern history, all male householders in 
parliamentary boroughs in the United Kingdom 
were enfranchised. It was a great step towards 
democracy when the British electoral law of 
1867 was enacted; and there is some reflection 
of the new democratic spirit in the section of the 

C317] 



Elections 
from 
1867 to 
1882 
on 

provin- 
cial 
fran- 
chises 



Influence 
of 

British 
reform 
act of 
1867 on 
electoral 
franchise 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



House- 
hold 
suffrage 



British North America act which was appHcable 
to Algoma. 

Algoma Is today included in the province of 
Ontario. In 1867 it was a territory; but it was 
In Algoma then contemplated that it would have represen- 
tation in the house of commons at Ottawa; and 
by section 41 of the act it was decreed that until 
the parliament of Canada otherwise provided, 
at any election for a member of the house of 
commons from Algoma, in addition to persons 
qualified by the law of the United Provinces of 
Ontario and Quebec to vote, "every male British 
subject, aged twenty-one years or upwards, 
being a householder, shall have a vote." 

At five general elections after the British 
North America act had come into operation — 
in 1867, 1872, 1874, 1878? and 1882 — members 
of the house of commons were chosen on franchises 
which had been determined by the provincial 
legislatures. They were elected on the same 
franchise as members of the legislature. 

With the exception of the election of 1874, 
at each of these general elections the Conservative 
party was returned to power. Macdonald was 
premier of all these Conservative governments; 
and Macdonald, and a group of Conservative 
members, of extreme Tory politics, who were 
closely associated with him, never liked the federal 
principle applied to electoral franchises. 

Macdonald, in the first session of the first 
parliament of the Dominion, assailed this prin- 

[318] 



Conserv- 
atives 
agitate 
for 

uniform 
franchise 



gateways 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

ciple; and between 1867 and 1885 he introduced Federal 
no fewer than six or seven bills with the object ^f^i^s- 
of transferring from the provincial legislatures 1898 
to parliament the determination of the franchise 
for elections to the house of commons. But the 
Liberal opposition stood out for the federal 
principle, and Macdonald could not persuade all 
his Conservative supporters to vote with him. 
It was 1885 before he succeeded in carrying the 
Dominion franchise bill through parliament. 

Under this law of 1885, a uniform franchise Eight 
was established in all the provinces. The right 5^^^^ 
to vote was given in respect of eight qualifications, franchise 
These were (i) owners and occupiers of real estate 
of the value of $300 in a city, and ^200 in a town; 
(2) persons in receipt of incomes, or yearly 
earnings of at least ^300 from some profession, 
office, trade, or investment in Canada; (3) life 
annuitants of ^100 a year; (4) farmers' sons, 
living at home; (5) sons of owners of real property; 
(6) tenants of real property paying more than 
$2 a month rental; (7) fishermen owning boats, 
nets, fishing gear, or shares in a registered ship 
to the actual value of at least ^150; and (8) 
Indians in possession and occupation of distinct 
tracts of land in an Indian reserve, the improve- 
ments on which were valued at not less than 
$150. 

The act created a wide franchise, but it was Property 
a franchise based on property. It was thus in ^^^ 
accordance with the principles then held both by vote 



C319] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

the Conservative party In England and by the 
Conservative party in Canada. It was con- 
trary to the principles of the Liberal party in 
Canada, which as regards the franchise had 
outrun the Liberal party in England and Scot- 
land; for it was committed to the principle of 
manhood suffrage, a principle that by 1885 the 
Liberals in Ontario and in other provinces had 
already carried into law. 
Argu- Macdonald's case for substituting a Dominion 

?^®°* franchise for the provincial franchises of 1867- 
federai 1 885 was that the old plan was an anomaly, 
franchise « jt jg quite contrary," he said, " to first principles. 
The representatives of the people in parliament, 
representing the people in a Dominion sense, 
must have, and ought to have, control of all 
reforms and changes in the representation." 
Civil In some of the provinces, notably in the Mari- 

senrants ^j^^^ Provinces, which are served by the Inter- 

and tlie . . ' ■' . 

franciuse colonial Railway — the government railway — 
the legislatures had excluded men on the pay roll 
of the Dominion government from the franchise. 
Macdonald had these exclusions in mind when he 
submitted his case for the Dominion franchise 
to the house of commons. "It is out of the 
question," he said, "that we here, representing 
the people of the Dominion as a whole, should 
find ourselves, for local reasons or local purposes, 
in any given province, actually deprived of people 
who would elect us." ^ 

1 H. C. Debates, April 16, 1885. 

C 320 ] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

Ostensibly uniformity and the estopping of More 
provincial legislatures from excluding civil serv- p**^°°" 
ants of the Dominion from the franchise were 
the grounds on which the act of 1885 was based. 
Another reason for it undoubtedly was the fact 
that the act placed the compiling of the electoral 
lists in the hands of nominees of the govern- 
ment, and also added largely to the patronage of 
the government. 

It was provided by the act that there should Revision 
be a revision of the electoral rolls each year. **! 

T-i r ... - ., , ,. electoral 

The first revision m 1886 entailed an expenditure rolls 
of over $400,000. The government was afraid 
to ask parliament for annual appropriations on 
this scale. It therefore carried through parlia- 
ment bills suspending the sections of the act of 
1885 which made annual revisions of the electoral 
rolls mandatory; and although the law was on 
the statute book from 1885 to 1898, there were 
only three revisions of the rolls. 

There were seven provinces in 1885. In five Manhood 
of them — British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, ^"**s« 
New Brunswick, and Ptince Edward Island — ■ 
manhood suffrage had been established by act 
of the legislature. In Quebec and Nova Scotia 
the franchises were based on property — on 
qualifications not much unlike those of the Do- 
minion franchise of 1885. 

In all the provinces the Dominion act was Opposi- 
condemned as a departure from the federal **°?^ , 

. . to federal 

principle. By the Liberal party it was also franchise 

[321 ] 



Liberals 
pledge 
them- 
selves 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

condemned because it was opposed to Liberal 
principles, and because of the jobbery and manoeu- 
vering in the interest of the Conservative party 
which it made possible. 

The Liberals from 1885 to 1896 denounced the 
Dominion franchise act — in parliament, on the 
platform, and in the press— as strongly and 
to repeal persistently as they denounced the gerrymandering 
1885 of electoral divisions by the redistribution acts 
of 1872, 1882, and 1892. At the national con- 
vention of 1893 — the only national convention 
of the Liberal party in the first fifty years of 
Confederation — the party committed itself to 
the repeal of the act of 1885. 

It pledged itself to repeal on these grounds: 

That the act since 1885 had cost the Dominion treas- 
ury over a million dollars, besides entailing heavy ex- 
penditures on both political parties. 

That the heavy cost had prevented annual revisions 
of the electoral rolls, as originally intended; and in the 
absence of such revisions, young voters, entitled to the 
franchise, had in numerous instances been prevented from 
exercising their natural rights. 

That the act had failed to secure uniformity, which 
was the principal reason assigned for its introduction. 

That it had produced gross abuses by partisan revis- 
ing barristers appointed by the government; and 

That its provisions were less liberal than those already 
existing in many provinces of the Dominion.^ 

^ Official Report, Liberal convention, 1893, 122. 



[322] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



VII. The Return to Provincial Franchises 

Two years after the Liberal government came Rever- 
into power it implemented this pledge of 1893; ^*°"j*** 
and since 1898 members of the house of commons ciai 
have again, as from 1867 to 1885, been elected *^' 
on the same franchises as members of the pro- 
vincial legislatures. "The qualifications neces- 
sary to entitle any person to vote at a Dominion 
election in any province," reads a section of the 
election code, as it was enacted in 1898, "shall 
be those established by the laws of that province 
as necessary to entitle such person to vote in the 
same part of the province at a provincial election." 

The objection that Macdonald made in 1885 Safe- 
to the electoral laws of the provinces — the objec- f^^^ 
tion that in some of the provinces employees of chise 
the Dominion government were denied exercise °^ 
of the franchise — was not overlooked at the servants 
remodeling of the electoral code in 1898. A 
section was embodied in the act which provides 
that no person, otherwise qualified as an elector, 
shall be disqualified from voting at a Dominion 
election because he is employed in any capacity 
in the public service of Canada or of a province. 

Only the strong and forceful personality of Conserv- 
Macdonald, and the whip hand he constantly ^^l\ 
kept of his followers in the house of commons, reform 
enabled the Conservative government to carry 
the Dominion franchise act of 1885. It was 
greatly disliked by quite a number of Conserv- 

[323] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

atives in parliament and in the constituencies. 

In 1898, when the law was repealed, there were 

no expressions of regret, and no protests from the 

Conservative benches. 

Electoral For six years after 191 1 a Conservative govern- 

refonns i^ent was again in power. It did not revert to 

govern- the old systcm; and redistribution of seats effected 

™ent ^y conference between the representatives of 

both political parties at Ottawa, and provincial 

electoral franchises as the franchises on which 

members of the house are elected, would now 

seem to have become permanently established 

as usage and law.^ Credit for both these demo- 

1 During the parliamentary session of 1917 a war-time 
elections act was passed. It enfranchised the wives, widows, 
mothers, and sisters of Canadian soldiers and sailors, who had 
gone overseas to serve with the British military and naval 
forces; disquaUfied British subjects "of alien enemy birth, 
or of other European birth, or of alien enemy mother-tongue 
or native language," who had been naturalized later than 
March 31, 1902; and also disqualified men who had been 
exempted from military service, or had applied for exemption 
from the operation of the conscription act of 19 17, on the 
ground that they had conscientious objections to serving with 
military forces. "Its provisions," said Meighen, secretary 
of state, in introducing the bill in the house of commons, 
are to operate only during the period of the present war and 
of demobilization thereafter. That is to say, so far as the 
bill amends the Dominion elections act, it amends it only 
to cover the now apparently certain event of an election 
during the war or before demobilization. After that the bill 
ceases to affect the Dominion elections act; the general law 
becomes the same as it was before, the same as it is today." 
— H. C. Debates, September 6, 1917. 

[324] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



cratic reforms must be given to the Liberal govern- 
ment of which Laurier was premier. 

The general requisites for voting at Dominion 
elections are that a man shall be a native-born 
Canadian, or a subject of the king by birth or 
naturalization; that he shall be of the full age 
of twenty-one; and not disqualified by reason 
of insanity or by conviction of crime. 

Manhood suffrage has been long established in 
all the provinces except Nova Scotia and Quebec. 
The residential qualification in the manhood- 
suffrage provinces varies from six months in 
Manitoba, to a year in British Columbia. Resi- 
dence in the electoral division varies from one 
month in Manitoba, to nine months in Ontario 
— nine months before the time fixed by law for 
the opening of registration. 

In Nova Scotia, where representative govern- 
ment has been established longer than in any 
other outlying part of the British Empire, the 
vote is based on real or personal property, or the 
occupation of real estate. Nova Scotia has clung 
with tenacity to the ancient English principle 
in regard to the franchise. One qualification is 
assessment of real property valued at $150 or 
over, or of personal property or real and personal 
property together valued at $300. Men with an 
income of $250 a year are entitled to vote; so are 
fishermen, with boats and gear and real estate 
assessed at an actual value of $150, provided that 
such property is within the county where the 

[325] 



Qualifi- 
cations 
of 
electors 



Manhood 
suffrage 
in seven 
provinces 



Property 
qualifi- 
cations 
in Nova 
Scotia 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

vote is given. Yearly tenants of real estate, 
which is assessed at ^150, are entitled to vote; 
and so are the sons of owners of real estate, where 
they are actually resident on the qualifying 
property. 

With one exception — that of teachers in schools 
under the management of commissioners or 
trustees — the franchise in Quebec is based on 
property, or on income. It can be exercised by 
owners or occupiers of real estate valued in cities 
at ^300, or in other municipalities at ^250, or 
which yields a value of ^20 a year. It can be 
exercised by tenants in cities who rent real estate 
of the value of ^30 a year, and of ^20 a year in 
other municipalities. 

Teachers in schools under commissioners or 
trustees are also enfranchised — a provision in 
the law intended to meet educational conditions 
in the French province, where many of the schools 
and colleges are staffed by members of the teach- 
ing orders of the Roman Catholic church. 

Rentiers or retired farmers, with a rental of at 
least ^100 a year, are enfranchised, and so are 
farmers' sons, working on their parents' farms, 
if divided equally between them as co-proprietors, 
and sons of owners of real property resident with 
their parents. As in Nova Scotia, fishermen who 
own boats or gear of an actual value of at least 
^150 are entitled to vote. 



[ 326 ] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



VIII. Landmarks in the Evolution of the Electoral 
System 

Many of the old laws and usages of elections 
in England were adopted in the British North 
American provinces from Prince Edward Island 
to British Columbia, in the years from 1758 to 
1867 — from the first establishment of repre- 
sentative government in Nova Scotia to the 
creation of the Dominion of Canada. The early 
election laws were patterned after the English 
election code; and English usages, as distinct 
from laws, were established in the British North 
American provinces because it was immigrants 
from England who were in charge of elections in 
the pioneer days of the provinces. 

Among these importations were laws and usages 
which (i) established the forty-shilling freehold 
as a qualification for the vote in the counties — 
a qualification that in England dated back to 
1430 and survived until the sweeping reform in 
the electoral system of the United Kingdom in 
191 8; (2) admitted of a man voting in as many 
electoral divisions as he held qualifying properties 
in; (3) excluded civil servants from the franchise; 

(4) made the possession of real or personal prop- 
erty a requisite for membership of a legislature; 

(5) established hustings at an election — the 
platform in the open air at which the sheriff and 
candidates and their supporters assembled on the 
day fixed by the sheriff for the nomination; (6) 

[327] 



Old 

world 

election 

laws and 

usages 

in a 

new 

world 

country 



Forty- 
shilling 
free- 
holder 
and the 
plural 
voter 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



The 
move- 
ment 
towards 
democ- 
racy 



Passing 
of old 
world 
laws and 
usages 



established the English custom of chairing the 
successful candidate after the announcement by 
the sheriff of the result of the election; and (7) 
the much older English custom of girding a newly 
elected knight of the shire or representative of 
a county with a sword. 

As Canada in the first fifty years of Confeder- 
ation progressed towards democracy, and as bar- 
riers against democracy imported from England ^ 
began to be regarded as out of date and out of 
harmony with Canadian political and social 
conditions, the old electoral laws were repealed, 
and the old world usages were discarded. 

The forty-shilling-freehold qualification for 
the vote disappeared before Confederation. Only 
members of the senate at Ottawa are today 
required to own property as a requisite for 
nomination. The law requiring a property quali- 
fication for members of the house of commons was 
repealed by the Dominion parliament in 1872. 
The electoral franchise of civil servants at Domin- 
ion elections has been secured to them since 1885; 
and today there are no hustings, and few county 
towns in the Dominion at which has survived 
the old English custom of girding a knight of the 
shire with a sword. 

The plural voter — the man who can exercise 
the franchise in several constituencies because he 

^ Edward Porritt, "Barriers against Democracy in the 
British Electoral System," Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 
XXVI, No. I. 

C328] 






THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

has property qualifications in these places — where 
has survived longer than any of the other impor- *^® 
tations of the old electoral system of England, voter 
He still survives in Nova Scotia; and he was not ^"^^^s 
dislodged from the electoral system in the province 
of Quebec until 1916. But in Quebec the plural 
voter was only a factor in one or two of the 
divisions of Montreal; and even in the days when 
there were two or three provinces in which he 
survived, his influence Was greatly checked by 
the fact that since 1873 the polling at a general 
election has been all on the same day. 



IX. Ratifications of Members of the House of 
Commons 

The qualifications of members of the house Pariia- 
of commons at Ottawa, unlike those of a member ™^°* 

deter- 

of the senate, were not defined by the British mines 
North America act. It was left by parliament ^^^^' 
at Westmmster m 1867 to the parliament of of 
Canada to determine both the qualifications and ^e^i'er 
disqualifications of members of the popularly com- 
elected house. ™°°^ 

"Any British subject," reads section 69 of 
the Dominion election code of 1 898-1908, "may 
be a candidate in an election for a seat in the 
house of commons." "No qualification in real 
estate," reads the only other paragraph in the 
section, "shall be required of any candidate." 

A Canadian, who has neither a home nor any 

C329] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



No resi- 
dential 
qualifi- 
cation 



Open 
field for 
carpet- 
baggers 



Pro- 
portion 
of non- 
resident 
members 



Non- 
resi- 
dency 
and 
careers 
in 

political 
life 



material possessions in the United Kingdom, 
is eligible as a parliamentary candidate at any 
election in England, Scotland, or Ireland, as soon 
as he arrives in the country. In fact, he may 
be adopted as a candidate, and elected without 
his even leaving Canada; and the eligibility is 
reciprocal. An Englishman, Scotsman, or Irish- 
man, or a British subject from any part of the 
Empire, no matter how short a time he may have 
been in Canada, is as eligible, under the law, for 
parliament as a native-born Canadian who has 
never been beyond the boundaries of his own 
province. 

As in the United Kingdom, neither by law nor 
by usage is it necessary that a member of the 
house of commons at Ottawa reside in the con- 
stituency that he represents. 

Thirty members of the house of commons elected 
in 191 1 were not residents of the constituencies 
from which they were returned. At other general! 
elections after 1898 the proportion of non-resident] 
members was about the same; and from thel 
absence of law or usage requiring residence in a| 
constituency Canada, like England, has derivedj 
obvious and permanent advantage. 

These easy conditions, with the freedom theyl 
afford both to candidates and constituencies,] 
make a parliamentary career possible for a manj 
of ability who has an instinct for politics. A manj 
so equipped can regard an election to the house| 
of commons not merely as an episode in his lif^ 

[330] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

He can regard it as opening to him a career in 
Dominion politics — a career in the service of 
the state; for if he is defeated in one constit- 
uency at a general election, he can oflPer himself 
for another constituency at a special or by- 
election, or at the next general appeal to the 
electorate. 

Under any other system than that in use at British 
Westminster for three and a half centuries, and ^^ ,, 

' _ Canadian 

in Canada from the earliest days of representative gains 
institutions in the old British North American ^°™^ 

abandon- 
provinces, the British system of government mentof 

through parliament and through a cabinet, all of ^^^^L. 
whose members must be in parliament, would quaim- 
never have reached its present high state of de- *^*^*"* 
velopment and efficiency. 

The names of scores of men, who in the three Fifteenth- 
centuries from the reign of Tames I to that of '^^^^ 

o •' ^ enact- 

George V, rank high as reformers or parlia- ments 
mentarians or statesmen, would be missing from 
the pages of history had the laws of Henry V 
and Henry VI, that decreed that members of 
the house of commons, citizens and burgesses, 
as well as knights of the shire, must be "dwelling 
and resident" within their constituencies, not 
fallen into desuetude long before the end of the 
sixteenth century. 

It was the lawyers — the gentlemen of the long Lawyers 
robe of the Inns of Court in London — who, by ^^^®st 

, . , ... J , , EngUsh 

their pressure on electors m cities and boroughs, carpet- 
wore down the English election laws of 1429, i^ageers 

C331] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Empire's 
debt to 
carpet- 
baggers 
of 

Tudor 
era 



English 
prece- 
dent 
followed 
in 
Canada 



Resulting 
gain 



1432, and 1444-1445, requiring that members of 
the house of commons must live in the counties, 
cities, or boroughs they represented. 

The British Empire is thus indebted to the 
lawyers of the Tudor era, who, for their own 
advantage, thrust aside the old requirement that 
members of the house of commons must be resi- 
dent in their constituencies. The innovation 
had advantages to recommend it. It was con- 
ceded to be of national service as early as 1620. 
In the eighteenth century, when the cabinet 
system was being slowly developed, the freedom 
of choice of the constituencies was especially 
valuable; and in 1774 all the laws requiring 
residence were repealed.^ 

The English precedent was followed when 
representative systems were adopted in the 
British North American provinces, and again 
when the constitution of the Dominion was 
framed. There were no provisions that residence 
in a constituency should be required of a candidate 
for election. 

A result of this freedom — a result of by no 
means small importance — is the effect that the 
permanency of groups of well-known parlia- 
mentary leaders at Ottawa has on political 
education, and in stimulating political ambition. 
The names of Macdonald, Brown, Blake, Cart- 
wright, and Tupper — to take instances only of 
Canadian statesmen who have passed away — • 

1 Cf. Porritt, "Unreformed House of Commons," I, 122. 

[332] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

from 1867 to 1 910 were as much household words 
in Canada as the names of Salisbury, Chamber- 
lain, Bright, Disraeli, and Gladstone were in 
England from 1867 to 1906, when Chamberlain 
made his last speech in the house of commons 
at Westminster. 

These five Canadian statesmen were always Leader- 
sure of large audiences in any city from the f'^^ 
Atlantic to the Pacific. The speeches they made pariia- 
in parliament or on the platform were widely ™^*^*^ 
read, — as are the speeches made today by fame 
Laurier, Foster, or Borden, — and in any democ- 
racy the utterances of the political leaders are 
the most effective means of popular political 
education. 

X. Disqualifications of Parliamentary Candidates 

First in the category of ineligibles are men ineii- 
who have been convicted of corrupt practices at ^^^^^ 
elections. Next come government contractors. 
Members of provincial legislatures are also in- 
eligible. 

From 1867 to 1872 there were many members of Dual 
parliament who were also members of the legis 
latures of Ontario and Quebec. The Liberals, 
session after session, opposed this dual member- 
ship; for it admittedly gave opportunities for 
log rolling by the Dominion and the provincial 
governments. 

The case of the Conservative government 
against the abolition of dual representation was 

C333] 



member- 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Shortage 
of 

political 
abiUty 
in 1867 



Members 
of 

legis- 
latures 
ineU- 
gible 



Public 
officers 
and civil 
servants 
excluded 



that there were not then sufficient men of poHtical 
ability in Canada to fill all the seats in padia- 
ment and in the legislatures. It was contended, 
moreover, that to prohibit a man from being a 
member of parliament and at the same time a 
member of a provincial legislature was an undue 
interference with the freedom of choice of the 
electors.^ 

Public opinion, however, was strongly against 
dual representation. It condemned the suspicions 
and abuses to which it gave rise in the years 
when there were still many unsettled questions — 
financial and legal — outstanding between the 
Dominion and the provinces; and in 1872 an 
act was passed by parliament which made a 
member of a legislature ineligible as a candidate 
for the house of commons. ^ 

Following English precedent, sheriffs and regis-] 
trars of deeds are on the ineligible list. Clerks] 
of the peace and crown attorneys are also ineligi- 
ble; and so is "every person accepting or holding] 
any office, commission, or employment, perma-| 
nent or temporary, in the service of the govern- 
ment of Canada at the nomination of the crowr 
or at the nomination of any of the officers of thi| 
government of Canada, to which any salary, fee,]| 
wages, allowance, emolument, or profit of am 
kind is attached." Ministers, of whom in 191] 
there were twenty-three, are exempt from tl 



[334] 



1 Cf. H. C. Debates, March i, 1870. 

2 35 Vict. c. XV. 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

section of the election law which excludes office 
holders — provincial as well as Dominion — from 
parliament. 

XI. Duration of Parliaments 

General elections in Canada, unlike congres- statutory 
sional elections in the United States, do not come *^™ °* 

parlla- 

at fixed and regular periods. The election of a ment 

new house of commons begins a new parliament. 

.Under the British North America act the term 

of a parliament can run for five years. It is, 

however, possible for the governor-general to 

dissolve a parliament at any time, in one of two 

eventualities. He must grant a dissolution if 

! his ministers — the cabinet — ask for it; and he 

can, exercising the prerogative of the crown, 

I order a dissolution at a crisis which in his opinion 

^ renders it necessary that there should be a general 

appeal to the constituencies. 

With two or three exceptions, parliaments Pariia- 
since 1867 have run nearly their full course of ^^^^ 
I five years. One of these exceptions was the not run 
j parliament of 1 872-1 874, the duration of which |^ 
' was much shortened by the downfall of the 
Macdonald administration in November, 1873, 
due to the scandal in connection with the granting 
of the first charter for the Canadian Pacific 
Railway. 

Alexander Mackenzie, leader of the Liberal 
opposition, was called upon by DufFerin, the 
governor-general, to form a new government. 

C335] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



The call to Mackenzie came after Macdonald, 
having been defeated in the house of commons, 
had, according to constitutional usage, tendered 
his resignation to the governor-general. 

A group of Conservatives had voted with the 
Liberals for the motion censuring Macdonald 
and his government. But these Conservatives 
had not thrown in their lot with the Liberals on 
other questions than the Canadian Pacific scandal; 
and the Liberals in the session of 1873 were 
outnumbered by the Conservatives by six. 

No contentious business could have been carried 
through the house under these adverse conditions. 
At the request of the new administration parlia- 
ment was dissolved on January 2; and at the 
elections on January 22 the Mackenzie adminis- 
tration was returned with a majority of sixty 
in a house of 206 members. 

Another instance of a parliament that was 
dissolved some time before the end of its term 
was that of 1908-1911. Like the parliament of 
1 872-1 874 its lifetime was shortened by a crisis — 
a crisis not due to a scandal, but to the persistent 
and successful obstruction, by the Conservative 
opposition, of the bill of the Laurier government 
for reestablishing commercial reciprocity with 
the United States. 

The opposition was determined to force a dis- 
solution. The obstructionists were so successful 
that the reciprocity bill, necessary to make effec- 
tive the reciprocity act already passed by congress 

C336] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

at Washington, did not get beyond its preliminary 
stages in the house of commons. The opposition 
forced the Laurier administration into a place 
where it had either to withdraw the bill, or to 
ask the governor-general to grant a dissolution. 
The government preferred a dissolution; and 
after the general election in September, Laurier 
and his following of the Liberal party found 
themselves in a minority of thirty-seven in the 
new house of commons.^ 

As at Westminster, it is only under the most 
exceptional circumstances that a governor-general 
at Ottawa can dissolve parliament by the exer- 
cise of the prerogative, and not on the advice 
of his ministers. 

XIL Dissolution of Parliament — General 
Elections 

The last session of a parliament before dissolu- The 
tion ends in exactly the same way as any other ^^^ *^* 
session. There is the usual speech from the ment 
throne in the chamber of the senate. Senators 
and members of the house of commons disperse 
to their homes; and at a later date, determined 
upon by the cabinet, there issues a royal procla- 
mation dissolving parliament. 

The proclamation discharges the existing parlia- 
ment — the parliament that had been prorogued 
at the end of the session — from its duties of 

^ Conservatives, 133; Liberals, 86; Independents, 2. 

C337] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Dis- attendance; declares the desire of the crown, 

solution acting through the governor-general, to have 

by royal . . 

procia- the advice of its people, and the royal will and 

mation pleasure to call a new parliament. It is further 

announced in the proclamation that an order has 

been issued to the clerk of the crown in chancery 

— a state official at Ottawa — to issue the neces- 
sary writs for the new parliament. 

King's The writs go out in the name of the king. 

They go to the sheriffs or other returning officers 

— a separate writ for each electoral division. 
In the writ the sheriff is informed that "by the 
advice of our privy council for Canada, we have 
ordered a parliament to be holden at Ottawa," 
on a date that is named. The sheriff is com- 
manded, notice of the time and place of the 
election having been duly given, to "cause election 
to be made, according to law, of a member to 
serve in the house of commons of Canada, for 
the electoral district" of Algoma, or whatever 
the district may be. 

Com- The sheriff is further commanded to "cause 

™^* the nomination of candidates at such election" 
sheriff to be held on a day named in the writ. The 
election is held seven days after the nomination; 
and after the votes have been counted it is the 
duty of the sheriff — again quoting from the 
writ — to cause the name of the member elected, 
"whether he is present or absent, to be certified 
to our clerk of the crown in chancery, as by law 
directed." 

C338] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

The procedure is almost Identical with that Election 
followed in the election of members to the house ^°'^®" 

dure 

of commons at Westminster, procedure now al- 
most six centuries old. 

Before the writs are received by the returning Exixa- 
officers much has happened in connection with ^^ 
the pending election which may be described proce- 
as extra-constitutional, in that it is not governed ^^^ 
by any section of the British North America 
act, nor by any enactment of the Dominion 
parliament. 

Party conventions have been held in each con- Con- 
stituency at which candidates have been chosen. ^®^**°°^ 
The premier of the government in existence at the mam- 
dissolution of parliament has issued his manifesto ^^^*°^^ 
to all the electors of the Dominion, and a similar 
manifesto has been issued by the leader of the 
party in opposition. Each candidate has also 
issued his address to the electors of the constit- 
uency from which he desires to be returned to 
parliament; and each candidate has made his 
campaign at mass meetings in the electoral 
division. 

The returning officer in his official capacity No 
knows nothing of political parties. At his session, y°^*"' 
in the court house or the town hall, on nominat- recogni- 
ing day, any twenty-five electors may nominate "°°y°' 
a candidate; and it does not come within the parties 
duties of a returning officer to make any inquiries 
as to the party affiliations of the electors who 
sign the nominating paper. 

[339] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA] 

All that the returning officer Is legally requirec 
to ascertain is (i) that the person named in eacl 
nominating paper has consented in writing to| 
the nomination, except where such person is 
absent from the province, when such absence 
must be stated in the nominating paper; anc 
(2) that accompanying each nominating papei 
there is a deposit of $200. 



British 
parlia- 
mentary 
candi- 
dates 
pay 
ofiSclal 
expenses 
of 
elections 



XIII. Candidates and the Official Expenses 
of Elections 

Canada, in its election code, has departed ii 
one important particular from the usage of 
elections and the laws applicable to members o^ 
the house of commons at Westminster. 

By usage for many generations before 1712^ 
and by numerous enactments since 171 2, candi- 
dates for the British house of commons havel 
always been saddled with the official expenses 
of elections. They pay the fees of the returning 
officers, and the cost of constructing polling 
booths or of hiring rooms for polling booths. 
They pay the cost of printing the ballots, and of 
official advertising. They pay the fees of the 
poll clerks, and of the men who count the ballots; 
and they pay also all charges for the services of 
extra policemen who may be required to keep 
order on election day. 

Before a nomination of a candidate Is accepted 
by a returning officer In the United Kingdom, 

[340] 



i 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



the candidate must make a deposit large enough 
to cover his quota of the official expenses — 
expenses which, for each candidate, vary from 
£ioo in a borough constituency to £1500 in a 
county division with a large electorate. 

Official expenses at elections in Canada, except 
in one eventuality, are a charge on the Dominion 
treasury. Under the election code of the United 
Provinces, in the days of nomination at the 
hustings and open voting — proceedings which 
the law stipulated must be held in the open 
air — none of the official expenses were by law 
thrown on the candidates, and there was no 
change in this respect until the first election 
code of the Dominion was enacted by parliament 
in 1874. 

In this code it was provided that each candidate, 
before his nomination could be accepted, must 
make a payment of ^50 towards the expenses 
of the returning officer. The code of 1874 was 
framed and carried through parliament by a 
Liberal government. 

At the redistribution of representation in 1882 
— a redistribution notorious for the systematic 
gerrymandering of electoral divisions by the 
Conservative government, of which Macdonald 
was premier — an amendment was made to the 
electoral code of 1874. The section providing 
for the payment of $50 towards election expenses 
by candidates was repealed. In its place was 
inserted a remarkable section which still remains 

C 341 ] 



Deposit 
made by 
candi- 
date 



Official 

expenses 

of 

elections 

in 

Canada a 

public 

charge 



Charges 
on 

candi- 
dates 
from 
1874 
to 1882 



Amend- 
ment 
of 

election 
code in 
1882 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

in the electoral code. It is remarkable, because 
it was undemocratic in conception; and for thirty- 
five years it has been undemocratic in operation. 
It is, moreover, without a parallel in the election 
codes of English-speaking countries. 
An Under this section of the electoral law each 

^tiT*°" candidate, before his nomination is accepted by 
pro- the returning officer, must deposit with that 

iaw°^^ official a sum of ^200. To a successful candidate 
1882 the deposit is promptly returned. It is not 

returned to an unsuccessful candidate if he fails 
to obtain a number of votes at least equal to 
half the number polled by the candidate elected. 
In this event the deposit is forfeited to the 
king, for the public uses of Canada, and is applied 
by the returning officer toward the payment of 
election expenses. 

XIV. A Statutory Penalty for an Unsuccessful 
Candidate 

Object The object of thus penalizing an unsuccessful 

°* candidate is professedly to prevent irresponsible 

men from thrusting themselves into an election. 
It has the effect of checking contests against mem- 
bers of a preceding parliament who secured their 
seats by large majorities. It accounts for many 
uncontested elections — for what are described as 
walk-overs or elections by acclamation. 

A candidate who has been returned by an 
overwhelming majority, to emphasize the measure 

[342] 






THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



of success, frequently uses the phrase that his 
opponent "lost his deposit," a remark that indi- 
cates that he regards his seat in the house of 
commons as unassailable. 

The system of only two parties in politics — 
Conservative and Liberal — is much more firmly 
established in Canada than it was in England 
during the half century before the war. At 
Westminster, after the Irish Nationalist party 
was organized in the parliament of 1 867-1 874, 
the old system of two parties broke down; and 
from 1900 to 1914 there were five distinct organ- 
ized parties in the house of commons. 

The two-party system in Canada is even more 
firmly established than it is in the United States. 
An agrarian party that developed some strength 
in Ontario — the Patrons of Industry — elected 
two or three members to Ottawa in 1896. But 
it was a short-lived movement; and at no time 
in Canada was there a movement, carried on 
independently of both Conservative and Liberal 
parties, that for success in securing representation 
in the federal legislature can be compared with 
the movement of the Progressive Republicans 
at the congressional elections of 191 2 and 1914. ^ 

Nearly 13,000 votes were polled for labor 
candidates in the Dominion general election of 
191 1. But in no house of commons from 1900 to 
1916 was there a single independent labor member, 
despite the fact that there are a score of con- 
1 Cf. Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 105-106. 

[343] 



Candi- 
date who 
loses 
deposit 



Two- 
party 
system 
In 

Canadian 
politics 



An 

agrarian 

party 

that 

collapsed 



No 

labor 

members 

at 

Ottawa 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

stituencies in which men employed in factories 
or in coal mines constitute the majority of the 
electorate. 
Labor For ten or twelve years before the war the 

ticmio Dominion Trades and Labor Congress — a per- 
eiection manent organization with headquarters in Toronto 
deposit — ^^ ^YiQ eve of each new session of parliament 
petitioned both Liberal and Conservative govern- 
ments to repeal the section of the electoral code 
which requires a deposit from a candidate for 
the house of commons. In 19 14 the deputation 
from the congress — an organization which com- 
prises in its membership most of the leaders of 
the labor party in provincial and municipal 
politics — coupled with the request for repeal 
a suggestion that a candidate might be required 
to obtain a much larger number of signatures 
to his nomination paper than the twenty-five 
demanded by the existing code. 
A The petition for this reform was presented to 

o^^ Doherty, minister of justice, in the Borden govern- 
eiection ment. It evoked more sympathy from him than 
it had done from any minister, Liberal or Conserv- 
ative, in any previous year. "Under the present 
law," he said, "a candidate is practically betting 
^200 that he will secure half as many votes as 
the candidate who is elected." "We say to a 
candidate," he added, lapsing into the colloquial, 
"go down in your clothes and get ^200, or you 
can't have a run at this thing." ^ 

1 Globe, Toronto, March 14, 1914. 
[344] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

The penalizing section was aimed at the Long 
Liberals, who in 1882 were in opposition. In ^^ 
operation it has had a more far-reaching effect pouticai 
than the Conservative authors of the clause p*^®^ 
I conceived. It has been of service to the Liberal 
t party at Ottawa as well as to the Conservative 
party. It has been of even more service to the 
Liberals than the Conservatives; for the require- 
ment of a deposit of $200 tends to prevent a gen- 
eral election from being used as an opportunity 
for unauthorized political propaganda; and usu- 
ally, in any English-speaking country, it is the 
professedly liberal orthodox political party that 
sustains most loss of electoral strength from the 
propaganda of unorthodox political groups such 
as the Labor and Socialist parties. 

The law of 1882 is, moreover, obviously an An aid 
aid in maintaining discipline in the two existing *° 
I parties in the house of commons. The undemo- disci- 
cratic character of it, in a country where electors ^"°® 
in seven provinces vote on manhood-suffrage 
franchises, has consequently been persistently 
ignored by Liberal as well as by Conservative 
politicians at Ottawa. 



XV. Simplicity of Election Procedure 
As contrasted with congressional elections in Only one 



baUot 
be 



the United States, elections to the house of J 
commons at Ottawa are exceedingly simple, marked 
There are three or four constituencies, as, for 

[345] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

example, Ottawa and St. John, in which electors 
vote for two candidates. In the other 220-odd 
electoral divisions, when an elector goes to the 
polls all that he can do is to vote for one or other 
of two candidates. 
No At Dominion elections only members of the 

emWems ^ouse of commons are chosen. Provincial or 
on municipal elections are never held at the same 

ballots time. There are no party emblems on the bal- 
lots, no word or mark to indicate with which 
political party the candidate is affiliated. 
No The term "Liberal" or "Conservative" has 

statutory j^gygj- been embodied in a Canadian act of par- 

recog- , .... 

nition liament. These political parties exist, and have 
°' existed since 1792. But it is possible to go through 

parties all the constitutions framed for the old British 
North American provinces, for the Dominion of 
Canada, and for the three provinces created by 
the Dominion parliament since 1867, as well as 
through all the laws governing elections and 
concerning parliament, without finding a single 
acknowledgment of the existence of either Con- 
servative or Liberal party. Political parties and 
their activities in and out of parliament are extra- 
constitutional; and in Canada, in accordance 
with British precedent, they are without statu- 
tory recognition. 
Order The names of candidates are printed on the 
°* ballot papers in alphabetical order. The size, 

names r r r ' 

on baUot letterpress, and every detail of the ballot paper rl 
are determined by the electoral code of the 3] 
[346] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



Dominion. To prevent the printing of fraudu- 
lent ballots, the paper used for the official ballots 
is issued by the king's printer at Ottawa. 

The ballot paper, in an electoral division which Form of 
returns two members, is in this form: 



baUot 




The hours of polling are from nine to five Hours 



I o'clock. Ballots are counted at the polling sta- 

; tions by the deputy returning officers, "in full 

view of the poll clerk, and the candidates or their 

agents," and before midnight on election day 

[347] 



of 
polUng 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

the government in office has been unofficially 
informed of its fate. It learns from the news- 
paper bulletins whether it has been granted 
another lease of power by the electorate, or 
whether, in a few days, it must give place to an 
administration formed by the leader of the 
opposition in the late parliament. 
Return Each writ is promptly returned to the clerk 

of writ q£ ^i^g crown at Ottawa; and the final act of the 
returning officer is the publication of abstracts 
of the statements of expenses incurred by candi- 
dates at the election. 
Election Each candidate is by law required to appoint 
^^^°^ an election agent; and only through this agent 
can payments be made of expenses incurred by 
the candidate in connection with the election. 
Extra- At elections in the United Kingdom the maxi- 

eiection mum sum that can be expended by a candidate 
expenses [g fixed by law. The sum is determined by the 
number of electors, and by the general character 
of the constituency — a larger amount being 
allowed for connty divisions than for divisions 
of cities or for boroughs. In Canada there is no 
such restriction on election expenses. Except for 
the deposit, election expenses are within the con- 
trol of the candidates, and it costs much less to 
contest a constituency in Canada than in Eng- 
land or Scotland. 
Election Petitions arising out of elections — petitions 

petitions ^^^^ have for their object the unseating of mem- 
bers for bribery or corruption, or other contra- 
C348] 



il 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



ventions of the electoral code — are tried before 
two judges of the superior court of the province 
in which the election in dispute was held. The 
Dominion parliament inherited from the leg- 
islature of the United Provinces the system of 
referring controverted election cases to select com- 
mittees of the house of commons. This system 
was that in use at Westminster from 1770, when 
the Grenville act was passed, until 1868, when 
parliament transferred the adjudication of elec- 
tion cases from committees of the house to judges 
of the high court. 

Canada in 1873 followed the Westminster prec- Trial of 
edent of 1868; and since then all election cases *'®'^**°° 

' _ cases by 

have been heard by judges of the superior court judges 
of the provinces, with a right of appeal to the 
supreme court of the Dominion — ■ a court which 
holds its sessions at Ottawa. The judges, after 
hearing an election case, report their decision 
to the speaker, who in turn reports it to the 
house of commons. In the event of the unseating 
of a member, a motion for a new writ is moved 
in the house. 

A member of the house of commons can resign Resig- 
at any time by a formal notification to the 
speaker of his intention to do so. In this par- 
ticular the Dominion house of commons has 
! made an innovation on the procedure of the 
house of commons at Westminster, where a 
member can free himself from service only by 
applying for, and being appointed to, the steward- 

[349] 



nation 
of 

mem- 
bers 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

ship of the Chiltern Hundreds, or of a crown 
manor. These are technically offices of profit 
under the crown. Acceptance of one of these 
offices by a member vacates his seat. 
Ana- While the Dominion parliament has devised a 

e"*i^ more easy method by which a member can free 
proce- himself of the tie to his constituency and to the 
house of commons, it still retains the old proce- 
dure of Westminster. Occasionally a member 
who desires to retire accepts an appointment to 
a country postmastership that happens to be 
vacant. He holds the office for a day or two, and 
then tenders his resignation to the postmaster- 
general. 



dure 
retained 



C350] 



CHAPTER XIII 

THE cabinet: the king's privy 

COUNCIL FOR CANADA 



A 



T a general election, if the result is the Fate of 



return to the house of commons of a ^^^n^" 
majority pledged to the support of the adminis- deter- 
tration in power, there is no change in the ™^^ 
premiership, and usually only a few changes in general 
the personnel of the cabinet. 

On the other hand, if the opposition in the 
late parliament has secured a majority, the pre- 
mier, with as little delay as possible, tenders his 
resignation to the governor-general.^ By the 
resignation of the premier — as at his death — 
all the other members of the cabinet hand in 
their resignations. 

Appointment to all cabinet offices is made by Appoint- 
the governor-general only on the recommend a- ™^et° 
tion of the premier. It is the right and privilege 
of the premier to choose his colleagues, and to 
submit their names to the governor-general for 
appointment. Every member of a cabinet, so 

^ "The present practice is for the government to resign as 
soon as it is certain that it is defeated at an election; but it 
cannot yet be called unconstitutional for the defeated govern- 
ment to hold office until it is voted down in the house of 
commons." — Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," Note VII, 
io6. 

[351 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

chosen, knows that in the event of the death 
or resignation of the premier, he must, in accord- 
ance with the principle on which government 
by parHament and cabinet is based, at once 
resign his portfoHo. 



I. The Formation of a Cabinet 

For- The governor-general, on the resignation of a 

^ **° premier whose party has sustained defeat at an 

cabinet election, sends for the leader of the opposition, 

who is charged by the governor-general with the 

formation of the new cabinet. 

Number In the first administration after Confedera- 

^^jjjg_ tion — 'the Macdonald administration of 1867- 

teriai 1873 — there were fifteen ministers, one of whom 

° ^^ was without portfolio. From 1867 to 1891 the 

presidency of the council was a separate office. 

From 1891 to 1917 the offices of first minister 

and president of the council were held by the 

same member of the cabinet; and from 1909 to 

191 7 the premier also held the office of secretary 

of state for external affairs — an office created' 

by act of parliament in 1909 in consequence 

of the increased international relations of the 

Dominion. 

With a view to more systematic and acceler- 
ated development of the public lands and of the 
resources of the Dominion after the war, there 
was created in 1917, the department of immigra- 
tion and colonization. To this new department 

C352] 



THE CABINET 

were assigned powers, duties, and functions which, increase 

from Confederation to 1917, had been in the de- "gn^ber- 

partment of the interior. In 1917 also, at the ship 

organization on September 12, of the union gov- cabinet 

ernment, with Borden as premier,^ the office of due to 

president of the council again became a separate ^^^^ 

office. These changes in 1917 increased the num- war 
her of ministerial offices to twenty-three.^ 

1. First minister. 

2. Secretary of state for external affairs. 

3. President of the king's privy council for 
Canada. 

4. Minister of finance. 

5. Minister of trade and commerce. 

6. Minister of public works. 

7. Minister of railways and canals. 

^ At this reorganization, what, from 191 1, had been a 
Conservative ministry became a coaHtion or union win-the- 
war administration. There were of the new administration 
fourteen Conservatives, eight Liberals, and one leader of the 
newly organized grain growers' party in the prairie provinces. 
Six of the members of the new cabinet were, in October, with- 
out seats in the house of commons or the senate. Parliament, 
however, was not in session in the autumn of 1917; and no 
attempt was made by the new members of the ministry to 
enter parliament until the general election on December 17, 
191 7, the election at which the union administration and its 
i war policy was indorsed by the constituencies. 

2 In the administration organized in October, 1917, there 
was also a minister of overseas service — a war-time office 
that is not likely to survive the war and the restoration of the 
military forces of the Dominion to a peace basis. 

[353] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Salaries 
of 

minis- 
ters 



8. Minister of marine and fisheries and of 
naval defense. 

9. Minister of the interior. 
Minister of immigration and colonization. 
Minister of militia and defense. 
Minister of agriculture. 
Minister of customs. 
Minister of inland revenues. 
Minister of justice. 
Postmaster-general. 
Minister of labor. 
Secretary of state. 
Minister of mines. 

20. Attorney-general. ^ 

21. Solicitor-general. 

22. Parliament secretary of the department 
of external affairs. 

23. Parliamentary secretary of militia and 
defense.^ 

The aggregate salaries of the first minister] 
and secretary of state for external affairs , two] 
offices usually held by the same man, are ^12,000. j 
With the exception of the two parliamentary! 
secretaries, whose salaries are $5000, the other] 
ministers receive ^7000. These salaries, in each 
case, are in addition to the parliamentary indem- 
nity of ^25CXD. 

^ The office of attorney-general is usually held in conjunc-j 
tion with that of minister of justice. 

2 These parliamentary secretaries, like the solicitor-general, j 
are of the ministry but not of the cabinet. 

[354] 



I 



THE CABINET 

II. Conditions Determining the Distribution 
of Cabinet Offices 

In framing a new cabinet, in making recom- rcsMc- 
mendations to the governor-general for appoint- ^^^^ 
ments to these ministerial oiffices, the premier premier's 
has (in normal times) much less freedom of ^'^^^^ <>' 
choice than has the prime minister at West- coi- 
minster. leagues 

At Westminster, a premier, after a general 
election which has newly returned to power the 
party of which he is the leader, must consider 
the claims to office of the men who are associated 
with him in the leadership of the party. Men who 
have established a claim upon him are of both 
the house of commons and the house of lords; 
and there must be a division — now always an 
unequal one — of cabinet and ministerial offices 
between the commons and the lords. At such 
times the house of commons is the predominant 
partner, and to its members go the larger number 
of ministerial appointments. 

At Ottawa an incoming premier seldom need Senate 
concern himself about the claims to cabinet office ^^^^^ 
of members of the senate. All claims a politician at 
may have established on his party are settled in ^^^ 
full by his appointment to the senate. The of 
senate, moreover, has never developed any leaders *^''^®* 
who for long made any place for themselves in 
political life. 

Leaders of established position, who are grow- 

[355] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Provin- 
cial 
states- 
men with 
claims 
to 

cabinet 
office 



Securing 
seats 
in 

parlia- 
ment 
for 
pro- 
vincial 
states- 
men 



ing old, occasionally get themselves transferred 
from the house to the senate; but it is seldom, 
indeed, that a senator of the rank and file has 
established any claim on his party that need be 
recognized when a new cabinet is formed. The 
upper house at Ottawa is thus not a factor in 
the formation of a cabinet to anything like the 
extent that the house of lords is, and always has 
been, when a cabinet is coming into being at 
Whitehall. 

At Westminster a prime minister must weigh 
the claims of men only who are already in parlia- 
ment. A prime minister at Ottawa must do 
more than this. He must consider the claims 
of men of his party in the house of commons, 
and also of men who are not in parliament, but 
whose claims rest on party service in office, or 
in opposition, in the provincial legislatures. 

It is usual for the premier of the Dominion to 
summon to his cabinet men who are premiers of 
provincial governments or leaders of the opposi- 
tion in provincial legislatures. Men so summoned 
to Ottawa are, of course, without seats in the 
house of commons. If they accept the premier's 
offer, as they almost invariably do, they must 
resign their seats in the provincial legislatures and 
any office they may hold in the provincial govern- 
ments. Seats in the house of commons must be 
secured for them without delay, for only mem- 
bers of parliament can hold cabinet offices. 

In a newly-elected house of commons there 

[356] 



I 



THE CABINET 



are always members who are willing to resign 
their seats on the promise of a nomination to 
the senate. These accommodating members 
accept a postmastership or some other minor 
office. Their seats thus become automatically 
vacant, and the vacancies are promptly filled by 
the election of the members of the new cabinet 
who were without seats in parliament. 

In considering the claims of the leaders of the 
political party at Ottawa and at the provincial 
capitals, the new premier must also regard 
(i) the claims of French-Canada; (2) the claims 
of the other eight provinces; (3) the claims of 
the English-speaking population of Quebec; and 
(4) the claims of the Roman Catholic population 
of the Dominion that is not French. 

Three cabinet or ministerial offices are usually 
assigned to French-Canada.^ The same number 

^ At the general election of 191 1 the Nationalist party of 
Quebec threw in its lot with the Conservative party under 
the leadership of Borden. The platform of the Nationalists, 
adopted at Eustache, Quebec, in July, 19 10, declared against 
any participation by the Dominion in imperial wars outside 
Canadian territory, and against any attempt at recruiting 
troops in Canada for Great Britain; and expressed opposi- 
tion to the establishment in Canada of "a naval school with 
the help, and for the benefit, of imperial authorities." The 
Nationalists, in the election campaign, also opposed any addi- 
tions to the British fleet at the expense of the Dominion. 
They carried eighteen or nineteen seats; and as a condition 
of support of the Borden government they demanded 
(l) that the portfolios of public works, inland revenue, and 
the post oflice be assigned respectively to Monk, Nantel, and 

C357] 



Accom- 
modating 
mem- 
bers 
of the 
com- 
mons 



Geo- 
graphical, 
racial, 
and 

religious 
con- 
ditions 
affecting 
forma- 
tion of 
cabinet 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



The 

claims 

of 

Quebec 

and 

Ontario 



Cabinet 
offices 
ear- 
marked 
for 

particular 
provinces 



as a rule go to Ontario. At least one cabinet 
office must, by usage, be assigned to each of the 
provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Mani- 
toba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Colum- 
bia; and since the appointment of Edward Kenny, 
of Nova Scotia, in 1869, as representative of the 
English-speaking Catholics ^ no cabinet has been 
long without a representative of the English- 
speaking Roman Catholic church.^ 

There is a custom, but not a custom invariably 
followed, to assign certain cabinet offices to par- 
ticular provinces. The department of marine 
and fisheries is usually assigned to a member from 
one of the tidewater provinces. To a New Bruns- 



Pelletier, all Nationalist leaders in Quebec; and (2) that no 
Protestant from Quebec hold a portfolio in the cabinet. Bor- 
den complied with these conditions. Cf. H. C. Debates, 
January 26, 1917; Canadian Pari. Guide, 1912, 25-26; and 
Ottawa dispatch to the Gazette, Montreal, dated November 28, 
1917, summarizing J. S. Ewart's reasons for supporting Laurier 
at the general election of December 17, 1917. 

1 Cf. H. C. Debates, February 17, 1871. 

2 The claim of the English-spefaking Roman Catholics was 
first recognized in the days of the United Provinces — in the 
days of what were described as "broad-bottomed administra- 
tions." (Cf. Buckingham and Ross, "Life of Alexander 
Mackenzie," 307.) Like the claim for recognition of English- 
speaking Roman Catholics in the senate, it has been recog- 
nized for fifty years by both Liberal and Conservative govern- 
ments. A politician of Irish extraction — almost invariably 
a lawyer and generally a member of the house of commons 
from the province of Quebec — usually represents the English- 
speaking Roman Catholics in the cabinet. 

C358] 



THE CABINET 

wick member has several times been assigned the 
department of railways and canals. This office 
goes to a New Brunswick member because the 
headquarters of the Intercolonial Railway — • the 
government railway — are at Moncton, New 
Brunswick; and, moreover, by far the larger part 
of the mileage of the Intercolonial is in the prov- 
inces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. 

The department of the interior, previous to The 
1917, was usually assigned to a member from ^l^^ 
the prairie provinces. It went to a member depart- 
from the grain-growing country because the ^^^^ 
government lands in the organized provinces, interior 
as distinct from those in the territories, are mostly 
in the provinces which lie between the Great 
Lakes and the Rocky Mountains; and, more- 
over, because the purpose of the immigration 
propaganda, under the supervision of the depart- 
ment of the interior from 1867 to 191 7, was to 
attract immigration into these provinces. 

A department of immigration and colonization Depart- 
was created in 191 7. Following precedents, dat- ^®° 
ing back to the early years of Confederation in immi- 
regard to the department at Ottawa having ^ °° 
charge of immigration and colonization, the port- coioni- 
folio of the new department went to a member 
from the prairie provinces — Calder, of Saskatche- 
wan. 

All these conditions and factors confront the 
premier at Ottawa when he is forming his cabi- 
net; and in recent years, certainly since 1896, 

C359] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Govern- when Laurlcr formed his cabinet, the freedom 
dass °^ choice of a premier has been further restricted 
and the by the claims of the financial interests of Mont- 
°j '^^ real and Toronto, and the tariff interests cen- 
minister tering in these cities, that they have a voice in 
finance ^^^ selection of the minister of finance. 

Laurier recognized this claim in 1896. It is a 
claim that was also fully conceded by Borden 
when he formed his first cabinet in 191 1. 
inno- Distribution of cabinet offices based on geo- 

In °°^ graphical considerations, a%d on claims of race, 
usages religion, and special financial and material in- 
British terests, is an innovation on the usages and 
cabinets traditions of cabinets at Westminster. The in- 
novation has been developed by the differing 
conditions of Canada and the United Kingdom; 
by the operation of the federal principle; and 
by the need for conciliating assertive interests — 
racial and religious ^ — which is as old in Cana- 
dian politics as the ill-assorted legislative union 
of Upper and Lower Canada of 1841-1867. 

1 "Sir Wilfred Laurier is not the only sinner. Practically 
every party leader in Canada managed Quebec as Sir Wilfred 
has managed that province. A little more than an equal 
division of the spoils of office, concessions here and conces- 
sions there to race and creed, and there you have the states- 
manship of Canadian premiers of both Conservative and 
Liberal stripe." — Tribune, Winnipeg, December 20, 1917. 



[360] 



ill 



THE CABINET 



III. Ministers without Portfolio 

Another innovation is the presence in the Ministers 
cabinet at Ottawa of ministers without port- ^^' 
foHos. At Westminster, from 1832 to 1914, there ments 
were only four cabinets in which there were ^.^ 
members who held no office. In the first cabinet salaries 
of the Dominion — 1 867-1 872 — there was a 
minister without portfolio. In every cabinet 
since there has been a minister to whom no office 
was assigned, and who consequently drew no 
salary. In some cabinets there were two, or even 
three, ministers without portfolios.^ 

These ministers are sworn of the king's privy House of 
council for Canada. They attend cabinet meet- *^™" 

. . . mons 

ings and share in the collective responsibilty of and 

the cabinet. But as they draw no salaries other ™^^" 

than their parliamentary indemnities, it is diffi- without 

cult to criticize their actions in the house of com- ?°,f" 

• r • • • • folios 

mons if occasion for criticism should arise. 

In the case of a cabinet minister, who is in 
receipt of a salary, it is possible to challenge 
any action of his by moving a reduction in the 
vote for the department of which he is the par- 
liamentary head when it comes before the house 
of commons in committee of supply. 

There have been instances where the inclusion Addi- 
in the cabinet of a minister without portfolio ^°^^^° 

debating 

added considerably to the debating strength of strength 

of 

^ Cf. Audet, "Canadian Historical Dates and Events," cabinet 

113-114- 

[ 361 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

the cabinet in parliament. Notable instances of 
this were the inclusion in the Mackenzie cabinet 
of 1 873-1 878 of Edward Blake, who was leader 
of the Liberal opposition from 1878 to 1890; 
and the inclusion of Abbott, afterwards premier 
of the Dominion, in the Macdonald cabinet of 
1878-1891. 
Reasons No similar instances of a cabinet recruiting 
*°f , , its debating strength by the inclusion of a min- 

minlster ° . 

without ister without portfolio occurred after Abbott's 
f*^" appointment in 1887. The appointments, in 
more recent times, were made (i) to secure for 
the cabinet the aid, counsel, and influence of 
strong men, who were not free to devote them- 
selves entirely to politics; (2) to satisfy the 
claims of a province which otherwise might not 
be represented in the cabinet; and (3) to honor 
a man who had claims on the party in power, to 
give him a larger importance in the world of 
politics, and in the social life of Ottawa, than 
would attach to him if he were only of the rank 
and file of the government's supporters in the 
house of commons or the senate. 
A The dignity, so bestowed, carries with it the 

^^ right to the prefix "honorable" for Ufe. It is 
a life not unlike the honor bestowed on men at West- 
tenure minster who desire neither a baronetcy nor a 
peerage, but who prize a summons to the privy 
council, a summons that carries with it the rank, 
dignity, and title of "right honorable." 

More than half of the members of the ministry 
[362] 



THE CABINET 

at Westminster — the men who hold subordinate Ministiy 
offices in the government, and resign when the ^^j^g^ 
premier goes out of office — are not of the 
cabinet. At Ottawa since 1895, when the bu- 
reaus of customs and inland revenues were made 
departments of state, the solicitor-general and the 
parliamentary secretaries of state departments are 
the only ministers who are not in the cabinet. 

IV. Honors for Canadian Premiers — Titles and 
Hereditary Honors 

Three of the premiers of the Dominion of order of 
Canada — Macdonald, Thompson, and Tupper ?f; ^ , 

i-i iri -1 1 Michael 

— were knights before they attained to the pre- and st. 
miership. Mackenzie, the Liberal premier of ^^°'eo 
1 873-1 878, was three times offered a knighthood, 
and on each occasion declined the honor. "^ Abbott, 
Bowell, Laurier, and Borden, whose names com- 
splete the list of premiers from Confederation to 
the great war, were all created knights of the 
Order of St. Michael and St. George, within a 
few months after they had assumed office; and 
for nearly half a century a knighthood was re- 
garded at Ottawa and at Whitehall, as the due of 
any man who became premier of the Dominion. 

A still greater distinction is usually bestowed Member- 
by the sovereign on premiers at Ottawa. Mac- ship of 
donald, Thompson, Laurier, and Borden were councu 
each sworn of the privy council at Whitehall, ^twhite- 
and thereby became "right honorable." 
^ Cf. Buckingham and Ross, 551. 

C363] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



A 

dignity 
empire- 
wide 
in its 
value 



Premiers 
of 

domin- 
ions 
and the 
Britlsli 
cabinet 



From 1872 to the war, from the time Mac- 
donald became a privy councilor to 191 5, a sum- 
mons to the premier of Canada, or to the premier 
of any other of the five dominions, to the privy 
council was only a method of conferring a dignity 
empire-wide in its value. It gave a defined place 
in the order of precedence at ceremonies of state. 
But it involved no duties at Whitehall, because 
previous to the war only men who were of the 
cabinet in Downing Street were called upon to 
perform the routine duties of privy councilors. 
The privy council meets as a body only on the 
death of the sovereign. 

During the war, Borden, the premier of Canada, 
and the premiers of the other four dominions, 
attended meetings of the cabinet in Downing 
Street. A premier of a dominion had never be- 
fore attended a meeting of the British cabinet. 
Borden's participation in the cabinet meetings 
of July, 191 5, revolutionized the "theory and 
practice of the system by which the British 
Empire had been governed for more than a cen- 
tury and a half." ^ 

A new constitutional link of empire was thus 
forged — one of many new links, constitutional 
and extra-constitutional, forged by the war; and 
from July, 191 5, a new significance attached to 
the fact that premiers of the dominions are of 
the privy council at Whitehall. 

The premier at Ottawa, in the years from 1870 
1 Daily Telegraph, London, July 15, 1915. 

C364] 



THE CABINET 



to 191 8, was not the only member of the cabinet 
distinguished by a knighthood. There were 
usually three or four knights in the cabinet; 
and knighthoods in Canada were in these thirty- 
eight years conferred on other men besides 
those in political life. There was a time when 
titles were conferred only at the instance of the 
colonial office in London. But as the powers of 
the Dominion cabinet, under the unwritten part 
of the constitution, were gradually extended, 
the colonial office lost the sole initiative in the 
bestowal of honors on men in the oversea 
dominions. 

For at least thirty years before 191 8 — a 
year in which the cabinet and the house of 
commons, following a popular lead from the 
constituencies, adopted a new and more demo- 
cratic attitude towards titles — it had been 
possible for the premier at Ottawa to make a 
recommendation, through the governor-general, 
for the conferring, by the sovereign, of a knight- 
hood on any of his colleagues in the cabinet or 
in parliament; on the premier of a province; 
on a judge of the superior courts; on a dis- 
tinguished civil servant; or on any man in the 
political, scientific, industrial, commercial, or 
journalistic world of the Dominion, whom the 
premier and the cabinet deemed worthy of such 
distinction. 

In more recent years baronetcies, and in at 
least two cases peerages, were bestowed on men 

[365] 



Premier 

of 

Canada 

and 

bestowal 

of 

honors 



Knight- 
hoods for 
distin- 
guished 
Cana- 
dians 



clans had 
to look 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Baronet- domiciled in Canada, on the recommendation, 
cies and ^^ ^^ least With the sanction or approval, of the 

peerages _ rr ? 

premier. 
To whom In these years — 1885 to 1918 — men who 
^mbuious "^^^^ ^" politics, and who were ambitious for a 
poiiti- title, expected recognition of their claims only 
from the premier of a government of which 
they were supporters in or out of parliament. 
PoUtics Conditions at Ottawa in this period in this 

Htf respect were similar to long-existing conditions 

Ottawa at Westminster, except that it was never even 
^^ , hinted at Ottawa, that titles were bartered for 

West- . . ' . 

minster subscriptions to campaign funds of political 
parties; while at Westminster the squalid con- 
nection between some knighthoods, baronetcies, 
and peerages, and the election funds of political 
parties, was notorious for nearly a generation 
before the beginning of the war in 1914. 
Political In Canada, in these years, the ability to recom- 
patron- mend for titles had popularly come to be regarded 
as an addition to the patronage in the bestowal 
of the premier. 
Popular Except among candidates for these honors, 

attitude ^j^j among their womenfolk, titles were never in 



Canada esteem in Canada. Knighthoods for men in 
towards ^}^g front rank in political life were tolerated as 
incidental to the connection with Great Britain; 
and they were regarded, moreover, as not disturb- 
ing to social order and social conditions in the 
Dominion. But there developed a widespread 
dislike of the bestowal of baronetcies and peer- 

[366] 



I 



THE CABINET 

ages; for a baronetcy or a peerage descends 
from father to son. The title and the distinc- 
tion, in the case of these dignities, do not end 
with the death of the man on whom they were 
conferred, as is the case with the lower rank of 
knighthood. 

There was a protest in the house of commons An up- 
at Ottawa in the session of 1914 against con- J^gt 
ferring titles on Canadians; and in 191 7, after them 
a baronetcy had been conferred on a resident 
at Toronto, long prominent as a dealer in 
hog products on a vast scale, and a peerage had 
also been bestowed on the owner of a newspaper 
published in Montreal, the agitation against 
titles, begun in the house of commons in 1914, 
extended itself east and west from Ottawa. 

The question was agitated in provincial legisla- An 
tures; and at conventions of church organiza- ^^^^^ 
tions, and of grain growers, farmers, and trade union 
unionists, resolutions were adopted urging the ^J^™" 
then newly organized union government to re- 
frain from recommending Canadians for titles 
of nobility. 

Baronetcies and peerages, in particular, were Baronet- 
condemned in these resolutions, or in the pre- peerages 
ambles to the resolutions, as manifestly out of assaUed 
harmony with political, economic, and social 
conditions in the Dominion.^ 

^ Cf. Gazette, Montreal, September 10, 1917; Grain Growers' 
Guide, March 14, 1917; Joseph Martin, "The Menace of 
Canadian Titles," Maclean's Magazine, Toronto, August, 1917; 

C367] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADAJ 

Only once before in the history of the Dominionl 
from 1867 to 191 8 did a government at Ottawa] 
react to a popular agitation in the constituencies] 
as promptly as the union government did to] 
the war-time agitation against titles. This was] 
in 1906, when the Laurier government repealed' 
an act passed by parliament in 1905 establishing 
a pension system for ex-members of Dominion 
cabinets. 

It was known at Ottawa as soon as the house 
of commons elected in December, 1917, assembled 
for its first session on March 18, 1918, that there 
would be a renewal in parliament of the agitation 
of 1914, and of the then more recent popular 
agitation of the question. 

The union government did not wait for action 
by the house. It anticipated action in the com- 
mons by adopting a minute of council, dated 
March 25 — a minute which was subsequently 
transmitted to Whitehall — in which four recom- 
mendations in respect to the bestowal of titles on 
Canadians, domiciled in Canada, were submitted 
to the colonial office and the imperial govern- 
ment. The recommendations were: 



"The Badge of Autocracy," Globe, Toronto, August 22, 1917. 
"Even now," said the Tribune, Winnipeg, August 18, in com- 
menting on Martin's protest in Maclean's Magazine, "these 
peerages should be plucked out of the life. of Canada, and a 
declaration made by the parliament of our Dominion that the 
democracy of which we boast is real and should remain 
untainted." 

[ 368 ] 



THE CABINET 



1. No honour or titular distinction (saving those granted 
in recognition of mihtary service during the present war or 
ordinarily bestowed by the sovereign propria motu) shall 
be conferred upon a subject of his majesty ordinarily resi- 
dent in Canada except with the approval or upon the advice 
of the prime minister of Canada. 

2. The government of the United Kingdom shall exercise 
the same authority as heretofore in determining the charac- 
ter and number of titles or honours to be allocated to 
Canada from time to time. 

3. No hereditary title of honour shall hereafter be con- 
ferred upon a subject of his majesty ordinarily resident in 
Canada. 

4. Appropriate action shall be taken, whether by legis- 
lation or otherwise, to provide that after a prescribed period 
no title of honour held by a subject of his majesty now or 
hereafter ordinarily resident in Canada shall be recognized 
as having hereditary effect. 



No more 
heredi- 
tary titles 



The bestowal of knighthoods was not ended Respon- 



by this action of the government. But with 
the far-reaching reform so brought about it 
became no longer constitutionally possible for 
the cabinet to ambush itself behind the preroga- 
tive of the crown, as had been possible under the 
old procedure at Ottawa, governing recom- 
mendations for honors made by the premier. 
A recommendation for a knighthood is now 
manifestly an act, in practice, by the cabinet — 
an act which can be discussed or challenged in 
parliament, like any other act for which the 
cabinet is responsible.^ 

^ Cf. "Last Prerogative Goes," Sun, Toronto, April 11, 
1918. 

C369] 



slbUity of 

cabinet 

for 

honors 

conferred 



**^* ._ _ .. ^- - ttt'i^t; ." _ u" 1 ; , LT : r 7. I arc 



t 






-'J i '— ~. 



«fe Imp aridbe -. 



LT^3 



THE CABINET 

a similar law has been in force in Cirii- . rie 
representative gov^nn^nt vr2> -rs : e f : i : £ r. e i 
in Nova Scotia in 1758. 

Members wbo have accepted office at the for- 
niati<» of a new cabinet are sddom put to xsz 
trouble and expoise of a corrected decricr 
They are oftoi reSectei ^^. :_: :r taming t: 
their constituencies. I: 2. Z-ir^z — "r'ftf: : 
ccxnpelled to enter upc.~ ^ ::z-tsz ::: :;- t:: :r 
and if he is defeated, it does not £dUow thit -e 
disappears finnra die cabinet. 

The cabins duoo^ the party macfain^y. 
can always '^opoi'* a safe ccMistitDaicy. It can 
always induce one of its supporters in '.'r - : _;r 
of conun<»s to relinqui^ a seat in : e : ~er 
house in escliai^;e for life memberdiip <^ the 
senate: and the defeated calun^ minister is 
promptly reinstated in the house of commons. 

The livT —iii-^ :relecti«a acmiditicm of office 
is contiE_: £ : ::f At any poiod in die 

lifetime c: i :i: rf: :: m the toon of a pailia- 
ment. i -f:::e: :rf rouse of cfMOOiiMXis who 
2cccr:5 ::i:: r: -.e iir;— 5 that he must se^ 
re^lec: :r. ^r - :r^: : e ziiy nave to face a con- 
test in his constituency. 

VL. Pamers, F**ctio*s, amd RespemxAUities 
of the CaMxet 

The formaticHi of a cabinet is complete as -soim 
as its m^nbers have takoti die oath of office, 
and have been sworn of the king's privy council 

C3713 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Governor- 
general 
and 
cabinet 



Minutes 

of 

council 



Cabinet 

and 

budget 



for Canada.^ It immediately assumes its exec- 
utive duties, and begins its preparations for 
the assembling and work of the newly-elected 
parliament. 

The cabinet is the executive of the Domin- 
ion. It is the medium of all communications 
with the governor-general, who in his turn is the 
medium of all communications, outward and in- 
ward, with the secretary of state for the colonies 
at Whitehall. 

Communications from the cabinet are in the 
form of minutes of council. Appointments and 
contracts are also made by minutes of council. 
Orders-in-council, which have the force of law 
— orders which are made under many various 
statutes — issue from the privy council, in other 
words, from the cabinet. 

Responsibility for all bills for raising revenue, 
and for all the estimates that are submitted to 
parliament providing for the current expenses of 
the Dominion, lies with the cabinet. 

The finance bill, colloquially known as the 
"budget," is prepared by the minister of finance. 

^ Every man who is sworn of the king's privy council for 
Canada is a privy councilor for life. The nine or ten members 
of the Borden cabinet of 1911-1917 who retired in October, 
1917, to facilitate the formation of a union-win-the-war 
administration remained of the privy council after they had 
ceased to be members of the cabinet. But the privy council 
at Ottawa never meets as a body, not even on the death of the 
sovereign. In the working of the constitution all the duties 
of the privy council are delegated to the cabinet. 

[372] 



THE CABINET 

Each minister prepares or supervises the prepara- Framing 
tion of the estimates of the department over °*^ , 

. budget 

which he presides. But before the bill of the 
minister of finance or the estimates for a depart- 
ment can be submitted to the house of commons, 
they must receive the approval of the cabinet; 
for the cabinet as a whole is responsible to parlia- 
ment for the estimates and the budget.^ 

The same principle holds in respect to govern- Govern- 
ment bills concerning matters other than taxa- f!f°* 

. bills 

tion and expenditure. It is open to a member framed 
of the cabinet, before a government bill is sub- ^^. 
mitted to parliament, to take issue with his 
colleagues as to the policy embodied in the meas- 
ure, or as to its principle, or as to details of the 
bill. If his colleagues refuse to accept his view, 
and he persists in his opposition, constitutional 
usage demands that he resign. 

It is the constitutional privilege of a minister Privilege 
who resigns from the cabinet — subiect to the °\ ^ 

, , minister 

permission of the governor-general, which is who 
never withheld — to make a statement from his '^^'^^ 
seat in parliament of the reasons for his disagree- question 
ment with his colleagues, and of the grounds on °!j^ , , 
which he resigned. Permission from the governor- 
general is necessary, because without it proceed- 
ings in privy council cannot be divulged. 

Only in parliament can an ex-cabinet minister 
make his first statement of the reasons for his 
resignation. The statement must be made in 
^ Cf. Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 95-96. 

[373] 



EN'OLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



parliament, in order that an answer may be forth- 
coming from the premier.^ 

Resignations from the cabinet on account of 
disagreements of ministers on questions of policy, 
or as to principles involved in government bills, 
are infrequent. There were only five such resig- 
nations in the twenty 3-ears preceding the war. 

Two members of the Bowell ministry of 1894- 
1S96 resigned in 1895 owing to differences 
with their colleagues on the Manitoba school 
question. They were differences arising out of 
proposed remedial legislation under the con- 
tention-breeding clause 93 of the British North 
America act. These were resignations from a 
Conservative administration. 

There were two resignations from the Liberal 
government that was in power from 1896 to 191 1. 
Blair, of New Brunswick, minister of railways 
and canals, resigned in 1904, because he was 
opposed to a bill for the construction of a second 
transcontinental railway. In 1905, Sifton, min- 
ister of the interior, resigned owing to differences 
with his colleagues over concessions to the sepa- 
rate school interests in the bills creating the 
pro\'inces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Three 
of the five resignations between 1894 ^^^ 19^4 
were thus due to issues originating in section 93 
of the constitution of 1867. 

Monk, of Quebec, resigned from the Borden 
cabinet in 191 2, because he could not concur in 
1 Cf. H. C. Debates, March i, 1905. 

[374] 



THE CABINET 



the decision of the cabinet to make an emergency 
contribution of ^35,000,000 to the British navy, 
"with the sanction of parhament, but without 
giving the Canadian people an opportunity of ex- 
pressing its approval of this important step." ^ 

A minister who persists in his opposition to a 
bill at cabinet stage sometimes embarks on a 
course that may cost him more than his ofl&ce 
and his seat in the council chamber. He may 
break with his party; find himself unwelcome 
at caucus; forfeit his position as almoner of 
patronage in his electoral division; and jeopardize 
his seat in the commons at the general election. 

It is recognized, however, at Ottawa, as at 
Westminster, that there is no place in the cabi- 
net, as it has developed at Westminster since the 
revolution of 1688, and in all the dominions since 
1 841, for a member who cannot go all the way 
with his colleagues on any bill which the cabinet 
is about to submit to parliament. A cabinet 
minister who disagrees with his colleagues, and 
persists in disagreeing, has no alternative but 
resignation; for a bill submitted to parliament 
as a government measure may — often does — 
involve the fate of the government. Every mem- 
ber of the cabinet must, therefore, support it in 
parliament by voice and vote. 

There are frequently political questions under 
discussion, both in the constituencies and in 
parliament, concerning which the cabinet, as a 
^ "Canadian Annual Review," 1912, 181-182. 

[375] 



Navy 
Issue 
of 191S 



Risks 
attending 
resig- 
nation 



Member 
of 

cabinet 
must go 
all the 
way with 
his 
col- 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOi 

MINION OF CANADA 

whole, has come to no agre 
known as "open questions/'^^ment. These are 
ment of women, as it was a^ The enfranchise- 
from 191 1 to 1916, is a typic?^^^^^'^ '"^ ^^"/^^ 
open question, and of the attitu?! example of an 
in regard to such questions. ^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^'"^^ 

In a debate on this subject in 
commons, in the session of 1916, S^^ house ot 
of the cabinet — Rogers, of Manit"^ member 
minister of the interior — spoke in fav°°^' ^ ^ 
parhamentary enfranchisement of womer°'' ° 
Borden, the premier, would at that time }^\ ^ \^ 
movement no support; and a motion in f?^^^ ^ 
votes for women at Dominion elections i^ ^^°'' i 
feated.^ The minister of the interior, ^^^ ?' 
speech, and by his difference on this c "^ _ ^^ 
with the prime minister, infringed no ' question 
usage of the cabinet. The motion on v^^ V-^ ?^ 
speech was made did not originate i ^"^ch t e 
cabinet; and woman suffrage was tri ^^^" ^ 
an open question. abated as 

At this time — February, 1916 — wo° 



on 

Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta we^^" !" 

possession of the right to vote at all provn'T^ }^ 

and municipal elections. A bill to the same' /"^^ 

had passed the British Columbia legislat 

and was awaiting the decision of the ele't ^ * 

The motion that was before the house of com ^^^ 

was for an amendment of the Dominion elec^ ^ . 

code by which the women enfranchised bv° , 

•^ M the 
1 H. C. Debates, February 28, 1916. 

L376I 



THE CABINET 



provinces would have the right to vote at elec- 
tions to the house of commons. 

Had the premier intimated when the motion 
was proposed that the government would accept 
it, and introduce a bill to amend the election 
code, woman suffrage would no longer have 
remained in the category of open questions. 
The amending bill would have received the 
approval of the cabinet before it could have 
been introduced into the house of commons as 
a government measure; and in parliament, as 
in the cabinet, it must have had the - approval 
and support of all the cabinet ministers. 

The duties of a cabinet minister are (i) to 
assist in council, and to share in the collective 
responsibility of the cabinet for the acts, meas- 
ures, and policies of the government; (2) to 
frame the policies of his department, and with 
the aid of a deputy-minister, a permanent civil 
servant, to supervise the administrative work of 
his department; (3) to receive deputations on 
all matters connected with his department; (4) to 
pilot through the house of commons bills that 
originate in his department; (5) to carry the 
estimates of his department through committee 
of supply; (6) to answer all questions in the 
house of commons concerning the policies and 
activities of his department; and (7) to support 
and defend the policies and measures of the ad- 
ministration in parliament, and when need be 
on the platform in the constituencies. 

C377] 



Circum- 
stances 
under 
which 
open 
ques- 
tion 

loses that 
status 



Duties 
of 

cabinet 
minister 



Assexa- 



bT law 



CHAPTER XIV 

PARLIAMENT AT WORK: THE 
HOUSE OF COMMONS 

^s.^- IV T EITHER by the constitution, nor by any 
bUng _L\j i^^ of |-]^e Dominion, is there a fixed time 

pallia- for the assembling of parUament, as there is 
""^ for the assembUng of congress at Washington. 
dSer- "There shall," reads the British North America 
^^ act, "be a session of parliament once at least in 
every year; so that twelve months shall not 
intervene between the last sitting of the parlia- 
ment in one session and its first sitting in the 
next session." The financial year of the Do- 
minion ends on March 31, and this condition 
practically determines the time at which a new 
session of parUament begins. 

Parliament is convened by proclamation, issued 
vened ^ly the governor-general. The date of its assem- 
jLia- bly is determined by the cabinet, on whose advice 
"^■^ the governor-general issues the proclamation. 
The sessions in normal years extend from Novem- 
ber until April or May. 
Organ- At the assembHng of a new parliament the 

if^ house of commons is without a speaker. The 
continuing officers of the house are the clerk, 
the assistant clerk, and the sergeant-at-arms. 
Much of the work preliminary to the organiza- 

[378] 



Con- 



the 
bouse 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

tion of the house is, by usage, delegated to the 
clerk. The newly-elected members take the oath^ 
and sign the roll at the table in the chamber of 
the commons in the presence of the clerk; and 
until a speaker has been elected, the clerk is the 
presiding officer. 

I. The Speaker and His Office 

The speaker is the chairman of the commons Duties 
for the purpose of maintaining order and declar- " ^^^^ 
ing or interpreting the rules of the house. He is 
also, unless the house otherwise directs, the 
spokesman and representative of the house in 
all communications made in its collective capac- 
ity to the crown. • 

At Ottawa the position of the speaker as re- Speaker's 
gards political parties is midway between the ^^'^^ 
position of the speaker at Washington and that with his 
of the speaker at Westminster. At Westminster ^^^ 

^ party 

the speaker, as soon as he has been elected to 
the chair, ceases to be a partisan. He never 
enters a political club. Unlike every other mem- 
ber of the house of commons he makes no political 
address when he seeks reelection from his con- 
stituency at a general election. He never pub- 
licly discusses politics. He is outside the arena 
of political parties. He serves for two or three 
parliaments, or for as long as he can stand the 

^ "I do swear," reads the oath, "that I will be faithful 
and bear true allegiance to his majesty King George V." 

C379] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Speaker 
at 

West- 
minster 



Speaker 
at 

Washing- 
ton 



Cabinet 

and 

choice 

of 

speaker 

at 

Ottawa 



Strain and burden of an exceedingly arduous 
office. 

It is a tradition at Westminster of now a hun- 
dred years' standing that a speaker must not 
continue of the house of commons after the end 
of his ser\4ce in the chair. For a century it has 
been regarded as incompatible with the dignity 
of the chair that a speaker should fall back 
into the rank and file of the house; and since 
Addington vacated the speakership to become 
chancellor of the exchequer and premier of the 
administration of 1 801-1804, 1^0 speaker at West- 
minster has ever resigned to accept office in the 
cabinet. A peerage and a pension have been 
the rewards of speakers at Westminster since 
the early years of the nineteenth century. 

At Washington the speakership goes to the 
leader of the party that is in a majority in the 
house of representatives, and after election to 
the chair he continues as leader of his party. 
Ser%4ce in the chair at Washington, moreover, 
has frequently been a stepping stone to the 
position of candidate at national conventions for 
the presidency of the United States. 

The choice of speaker at Ottawa, as at West- 
minster, lies with the cabinet. An election to 
the chair is not made by the house acting quite 
apart from the government, although at West- 
minster the usage is that the nomination of 
speaker must not be moved in the house of com- 
mons by any member of the cabinet. 

C380] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



There is no such usage at Ottawa. The nomi- 
nation is moved by the premier, who, almost in- 
variably, is of the commons and is leader for the 
government in the house. It is sometimes seconded 
by another member of the cabinet, and usually 
supported by the leader of the opposition. At the 
time these speeches are made — always speeches 
emphasizing the importance and dignity of the 
office and the eligibility and fitness of the member 
nominated — the chair is without an occupant. 

The mace, the symbol of the office, is absent 
from the table in front of the chair. Members, 
accordingly, address their remarks by name to 
the clerk at the table; for the clerk must desig- 
nate, by pointing to them as they rise in their 
seats, the members who have the floor to move, 
to second, and to support the nomination.^ 

A division is seldom taken on the motion for 
the election of speaker. Rarely is a second candi- 
date nominated; for the opposition is aware that 
a nomination to the chair, moved by the premier, 
fvill be supported by the full strength of the gov- 
srnment in the house of commons. 

The member elected as speaker at Ottawa is 
seldom of the leaders of his political party, al- 
though in addition to his obvious master\^ of the 
rules and procedure of the house, and his ability 
:o preside, he must have established some claims 
3n his party. 

^ Cf. election of Edgar Rhodes as speaker, H. C. Debates, 
[anuary i8, 1917. 

[381] 



Premier 

and 

election 
of 
speaker 



Ftmctlon 

of clerk 

at 

election 

of 

speaker 



Divi- 
sions 
on 

election 
of 
speaker 



Qualifi- 
cations 
of 
speaks 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Speaker 
does not 
attend 
caucus 



Speaker's 
asso- 
ciation 
with his 
party 



In the chair he must be non-partisan in his 
ruUngs and in his recognition of members who 
desire to address the house. He must favor 
neither the government nor the opposition. He 
does not go into party caucus; and in no sense 
is he a leader of his party. 

It is not, however, the usage at Ottawa, as it 
is at Westminster, that the speaker shall com- 
pletely sever himself from his political party. 
Speakers make political addresses in their own 
constituencies and elsewhere. They distribute 
government patronage in their constituencies, 
like all other members elected to support the 
government; and there have been instances — 
one as recent as January, 1917 — in which a 
speaker has vacated the chair in order to accept 
office in the cabinet. 



One 

tenn 
only for 
speaker 



II. Speakers Alternately from English-Speaking 
and French-Speaking Canada 

One reason for the larger freedom at Ottawa 
is that speakers there, unlike speakers at West- 
minster, serve only during the lifetime of one 
parliament. Conditions at Ottawa, partly due to 
race and language, and partly to long-prevailing 
ideas as to the distribution of all government 
patronage, have militated against the Westminster 
precedent of continuing a member in the chair 
for two or three parliaments, regardless of the 
fortunes of political parties at general elections. 

C382] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

There is a new speaker at Ottawa for each Division 
new house of commons; and it has long been a "L 

. . ° . offices 

custom that when one pohtical party continues between 
in power for two or three parHaments, if the *^° 
speaker in one parhament is of British extraction 
the next one shall be a French-Canadian. 

It is a rule also that the offices of speaker and Deputy- 
of deputy-speaker can at no time be held by men ^v^^" 
of the same race. If the speaker is a French- 
Canadian, the deputy-speaker, who is also chair- 
man of committees, must be an English-speaking 
Canadian; for the rule of the house is that "the 
member elected to serve as deputy-speaker shall 
be required to possess the full and practical 
knowledge of the language which is not that 
of the speaker for the time being." ^ 

The clerkship and the assistant clerkship of cierks 
the house, and the offices of sergeant-at-arms "^^ 
and deputy-sergeant-at-arms — all appointive as geants- 
distinct from elective offices — are, by usage, ^t-anns 
also similarly divided between the two races. 

Nearly all the offices, important and unimpor- Minor 
tant, connected with parliament, with the senate ° ^^^ 
as well as with the house, are distributed in accord- 
ance with these rules or usages. A roll call of 
the staffs of the two houses, including even the 
boys in knickerbockers who act as pages, would 
contain the names of almost as many French- 
Canadians as Canadians of British ancestry. 

1 Rules of the H. of C, 1909, 7; "Canadian Annual 
Review," 191 1, 304. 

[383] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Origin The rules and usages by virtue of which this 

°!_, , distribution of offices is made are older than Con- 

diTision 

of offices federation. They date back to the early years 
of the United Provinces, when Quebec and On- 
tario elected exactly the same number of mem- 
bers to the legislature, and when these were the 
only provinces in the union. 
French Quebec today elects only 65 of the 234 members 

Canada ^^ ^j^^ house of commons. Its population is not 
equal One foutth of the population of the Dominion, 
division j^g contribution to Dominion revenues does not 

of 

offices exceed one sixth. But an equal division of the 
offices of the house of commons is regarded by 
Quebec as necessary to the preservation of its 
rights and privileges; and so long as each political 
party, when it is in power, is dependent on sup- 
port from French-Canada, it will be nearly as 
difficult to ignore the claim of Quebec to these 
parliamentary honors and offices as it would be 
to repeal the clause in the British North America 
act that safeguards the separate schools system. 

III. The Crown and the Speaker — The Crown 

and the House 

Pledges As soon as the motion for the election of the 

^^^ speaker has been carried, the speaker, addressing 

speaker the house, not from the chair, but from the steps 

to the chair, pledges himself to maintain the 

rights and privileges of the commons, and asks 

the aid of all his colleagues in so doing. He then 

takes the chair, and the sergeant-at-arms, who 

[384] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



is the custodian of the mace, lays the mace on 
the table. 

Even yet the house is not completely organ- 
ized. Another step must be taken before all the 
constitutional usages have been observed. The 
crown must approve of the choice which the house 
has made of speaker. 

For this purpose the commons are summoned 
by black rod to the bar of the senate. They go 
in procession from their chamber to that of the 
senate. In this procession the sergeant-at-arms, 
bearing the mace, goes first, closely followed by 
the speaker, who is attended by a group of his 
fellow-members of the house of commons. 

At the bar of the senate the speaker announces 
his election to the governor-general, and submits 
himself, as is the custom at Westminster, "with 
all humility," for the approbation of the crown. 
Approval and confirmation are announced from 
the throne; and the speaker then demands "the 
ancient and undoubted rights and privileges of the 
commons." These are granted, and the speaker 
and his retinue return to the house of commons. 

At the opening session of a new parhament 
the house of commons has still one more duty to 
discharge before it is ready to consider the speech 
from the throne with which every new session is 
opened. Following a usage of the house of com- 
mons at Westminster, which can be traced at 
least as far back as 1558,^ the house of commons 
1 Porritt, "Unreformed House of Commons," I, 543. 

[385] 



Approval 

of 

speaker 

by 

crown 



State 
proces- 
sion to 
senate 



Speaker 
at bar of 
senate 



House 
asserts 
its 

inde- 
pendence 
of 
crown 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



BiU No. 1 



Dis- 
appear- 
ance 
of 
BUI No. 1 



Leader 
of his 
majesty's 
oppo- 
sition 



at Ottawa reads a bill in order to assert its right 
of deliberation without reference to the cause of 
summons as stated in the royal proclamation 
convening parliament, or to the business to which 
the attention of parliament has been directed in 
the speech from the throne. 

A dummy bill, long known at Ottawa as "Bill 
No. I," "respecting the administration of oaths 
of office," is handed by the clerk to a member on 
the treasury benches, — the benches on which sit 
the members of the cabinet, — who introduces it to 
the house, and moves that it be read a first time.^ 

No further progress is ever attempted with 
Bill No. I. It disappears from the order paper 
of the house the day after it has been read a 
first time, and is not seen or heard of again until 
the opening of the next session of parliament, 
when it is once more brought out from cold 
storage to serve its purpose as an assertion on 
the part of the house of its independence of the 
crown. 

IV. The Leader of the Opposition 

Organization of the house is not complete until 
another and an extra-constitutional step has been 
taken. The leader of his majesty's opposition 
has yet to be elected. A salary of ^7000 a session 
has, since 1905, been paid to the leader of the 
opposition, in addition to the allowance of ^2500 
that he receives as member of the house. Pay- 

1 Cf. H. C. Debates, January 19, 1917. 
[386] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



Elected 

at 

caucus 



ment of a salary to the leader of the opposition 
is an innovation on the usage at Westminster. 
It is, so far as the British Empire is concerned, 
an innovation peculiar to the house of commons 
of Canada.^ 

The method by which the leader of the opposi- 
tion is chosen is also an innovation on procedure 
at Westminster. He is elected at a caucus which 
is attended only by the members of the opposi- 
tion in the house of commons. Senators who are 
of the opposition do not attend the caucus; and 
except very infrequently senators, whether sup- 
porters of the government or of the opposition, 
take no part in caucuses held in the commons 
wing of the parliament building. 

The caucus is an extra-constitutional institu- 
tion which has never been established at West- 
minster by either of the two historic parties in washing- 
British politics. In Canada it is admittedly an *°° 
importation from the United States. 

It was well established in the era of the United 
Provinces at least as early as 1854; ^ and it was 
generally in use in the United Provinces, in the 
constituencies as well as at Ottawa, at Con- 
federation. 



Impor- 
tation 
from 



1 "This afFords a not very remote analogy with the advo- 
catus diaholi in courts which are to pass upon the proposed 
canonization of a saint — and to the employment and pay- 
ment by the state of counsel for an accused upon his trial." 
— Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 107. 

^ Cf. Buckingham and Ross, 121. 

C 387 ] 



•iSB 



E\"OLL"noN OF ry.z dominion of Canada 

Both the parr%" supporting the government and 
the party in opposition maintain the caucus 
rrs te uL. Members of the cabinet, who are of the 
house of coauDons, discuss in the caucus of their 
party the policies, bills, plans, and sometimes the 
appointm^its of the government. 

In the caucus of the opposition at the opening 
of the first sesaon of a new parliament, the 
leado- of the party in the h:;isr ;: c:cmnons is 
elected, and the attitude to ct :i^r- t?— ards 
g pv emmait measures and policie- i ir trrined. 

The caucus at Ottawa, while admittedly pat- 
terned after the caucus at Washington, is at 
least cMie stage behind the caucus of the house 
of represaitatives in development. The constit- 
noits of a m^nber of the house of commons 
have as good a constitutioaal rig^t to be informed 
of what he says and how he votes in caucus, as 
c f his speeches and votes in the house of commons. 

At Wadiington since 19 13 this right of con- 
stitooits has been recoguBed. Representatives 
of the press are admitted to caucus. At Ottawa 
the li^ts of constitn^ts in this matter have 
been ignored for fifty years. A caucus is always 
r.z\i iz\lnd dosed doors; and there is no full 
^r. 1 . irirndent public record of its proceedings, 
as there 5 :: iTiites and votes in the house of 
cMmnons. 

The act of parliament of 1905 which authorizes 
the payment of a salary to the leader of the oppo- 
siticHi, when it was before the house as a bill, 

C388] 



conten- 
tious 



THE HOUSE OF COxM.MONS 

was treated as an agreed or non-contentious Salary 
measure. It was a bill for increasing the allow- °f ^ ^ 
ances of members and senators from $1500 to oppo- 
$2500; establishing pensions of $3500 a year 
for ex-members of the cabinet; ^ and providing 
a salar^^ for the leader of the opposition. 

All the details of the bill had been agreed on Anon- 
at a caucus of the supporters of the government, 
and at a caucus of the members of the opposition; bm 
and as both political parties were satisfied with 
all its provisions, the measure fell into the cate- 
gory of non-contentious bills. 

The circumstances under which the bill was An era 
submitted to the house bv the government — ° .^^ 

feeling 

the era of good feeling in which it was born — 
explain the brevity and looseness of the section 
by virtue of which the salary of the leader of the 
opposition is paid. It neither defines an opposi- 
tion, nor indicates by whom and how the leader 
of the opposition shall be chosen. 

All that the section declares is that "to the a vague 
member occupying the recognized position of ^ ^^ 
leader of the opposition in the house of commons worded 
there shall be payable an additional sessional ^^'^'^^ 
allowance of $7000." 

There is no provision in the law for a certificate Warrant 
of election, nor for a report to the house of com- 
mons of the result of the election. The member of 
elected in caucus takes his seat on the bench on ^^^ 

^ The pension section of the act of 1905 aroused wide- 
spread popular indignation, and was repealed in 1906. 

[389] 



for 
payment 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

the opposition side of the house, assigned by 
custom to the leader of the opposition, and his 
appearance there is the warrant for the payment 
of the salary. 

V. The Seating of the House — Grouping of 
Parties 

Descrip- The chamber in which the commons hold their 
^^ sittings is oblong.^ It is divided by a spacious 

chamber aisle extending from the main entrance — the 
entrance at which the bar is erected, and at 
which the sergeant-at-arms is stationed — to the 
clerk's table and the speaker's chair, which is on 
a dais nearly the height of the table. 
Treasury Members sit at desks in rows on each side of 
the aisle, rows which rise in tiers running back 
to the ends of the chamber. In the front row, 
to the speaker's right, sit the members of the 
cabinet. The most commanding place in the 
row is assigned to the premier, who is the leader 
of the house. By unwritten law the desks in this 
front row are always occupied by ministers, as 
active members of the privy council. In the rows 
rising behind sit members who were elected to 
support the government. 

1 The chamber of the commons, also that of the senate, 
as well as many offices in parliament house, were destroyed 
by fire on February 3, 1916. A new and enlarged parliament 
house, on the site of the old building, was being erected at 
the time this study of the evolution of the Dominion of Canada 
was in preparation. 

C390] 



bench 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

The desks in the front row to the speaker's Front 
left are occupied by the leaders of the opposition. "^^ 
As members of a previous cabinet, they have a bench 
prescriptive right to these places, because they 
also are of the privy council for Canada, although 
on their ceasing to act as ministers they no longer 
attend at council. 

Cabinet ministers thus face the leaders of the Rank 
opposition. They are almost near enough to ^^^ ® 
them to carry on a conversation in a whisper oppo- 
across the aisle. The rank and file of the oppo- ^^'^°^ 
sition occupy the rows of desks behind those 
assigned to their leaders. 

At Westminster members of the government cierk 
and the leaders of the opposition speak from the ^* 

rr ... mace 

clerk's table that serves as a division between the 
treasury bench and the front opposition bench. 
No such use is made of the table at Ottawa. 
It is reserved for the clerk and the assistant clerk, 
and as the place of the mace while the house is 
in session and the speaker is in the chair. 

The mace is on the table only at such times, with- 
When the house is in committee, and the ^/^^ 

. oi mace 

presiding officer is the chairman of committees m 
and not the speaker, the mace is taken from *^°™" 

*^ ' mittee 

the table. 

The larger use of the table of the house of com- 
mons at Westminster — its centuries' long use 
as the place from which ministers and leaders 
of the opposition address the house — is due to 
the difference in seating of the two chambers. 

C391 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Termi- 
nology of 
West- 
minster 
in use at 
Ottawa 



Privilege 
of floor 



Govern- 
or- 
general 
and the 
house 



Only benches are provided for members of the 
house of commons of the mother of parliaments. 

At Ottawa every member is provided with a 
chair and a desk; and it is from their desks that 
members address the house. This difference 
in furnishing has not, however, prevented the 
adoption at Ottawa of terms descriptive of parts 
of the chamber in use at Westminster since gov- 
ernment by party was established there more 
than two centuries ago. Despite the absence of 
benches, the row of desks at which members of 
the cabinet sit is described as the "treasury 
bench"; and the row to the left of the speaker 
as the " front opposition bench." 

The privilege of the floor of the house of com- 
mons is much more restricted than that of the 
house of representatives at Washington. It is 
nearly as closely restricted as at Westminster, 
where a stranger is never permitted beyond the 
bar. At Ottawa the privilege is not granted to 
senators or to ex-members of the house, nor is 
it extended to visitors, however distinguished, 
except by motion adopted by the house. The 
floor is reserved for members, and for such of the 
house of commons staff' whose duties make it 
necessary that they pass inside the bar. 

A gallery facing the speaker's chair is reserved 
for the family and entourage of the governor- 
general. It is part of the unwritten constitution 
of the United Kingdom that the King must not 
be present at a sitting of the house of commons. 

C392] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

The governor-general is the representative of the 
crown in Canada, and as such .he must never be 
present in the house of commons at Ottawa. 

VI. The House, the Public, and the Press 

There are galleries on all four sides of the cham- Public 
her, all freely open to visitors. A motion can be ^ ^ 
made by a member at any time that the speaker 
order strangers to withdraw. Not more than 
two or three times in the first half-century of 
Confederation were strangers excluded from the 
galleries. 

The press gallery is immediately above the Press 
speaker's chair. One custom of this gallery is ^^^^ 
peculiar to Ottawa among press galleries in 
parliaments of the English-speaking world. Re- 
porters representing newspapers which support 
the government sit, like the government members, 
to the speaker's right. Reporters for opposition 
newspapers sit to the left of the chair. 

After a general election which has involved PoUticai 
a change of government, reporters, like members, ^^^ 
change sides in the chamber. The custom in press 
accordance with which this change of seats in 
the press gallery is made illustrates relations long 
existing between political parties and the press. 

Canada is a country of many newspaper organs Party 
and singularly few independent journals. There "^s^^ 
are not more than three or four politically inde- 
pendent daily newspapers in all the cities from 

[393] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Halifax to Vancouver. Only in these few news- 
papers is there independent eulogy or criticism 
of the government or of the opposition. The 
other daily newspapers are organs, either of the 
party in office or of the party out of office. 
Govern- Conservative newspapers, during a tenure of 
reyretfds power by the Conservative party, are rewarded 
for by the bestowal of cabinet office or senator- 

°®^" ships on the controlling owners; by knighthoods 

paper ^ _ =• ... 

owners and Other titular honors; by the distribution 

of government patronage to owners or editors; 

by orders for government printing; and by 

government advertising. 

Widely At the end of the term of a Conservative 

*^^^ government there is scarcely a Conservative 

lar- daily newspaper organ whose owners and editors 

^®^^ have not received some reward or largess from 

the government. With a change of government, 

favors to Conservative newspapers come to an 

abrupt end. It then becomes the turn of the 

Liberal newspaper organs to receive similar 

honors and rewards. 

Press Any policy or measure of the government, or 

any policy of the opposition, which secures the 

indorsement of the party caucus, is, as a result 

of these close and long-standing relations between 

political parties and the press, certain of the eulogy 

and support of the newspaper organs of the 

party. 

For eighteen years the Liberal party contin- 
uously opposed the protectionist tariffs enacted 

[394] 



and 
caucus 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



at the instance of the Conservative governments 
of 1 878-1 896, and also opposed a system of boun- 
ties for industries that had been estabHshed by 
the Conservatives. A Liberal government came 
into power in 1896; and in 1897, bills were framed 
by the cabinet continuing and extending the 
protectionist tariff, and also greatly extending 
the system of bounties for the iron and steel in- 
dustry which the Conservative government had 
begun in 1883. 

Both these bills — bills which completely re- 
versed the fiscal policy of the Liberals during their 
eighteen years of opposition — were indorsed 
by a caucus of the Liberal members of the house 
of commons; and within a few days this complete, 
unexpected, and startling change of policy had 
received the indorsement and support of the 
Liberal organs in all the nine provinces. 

From Confederation to 191 1 the Conservative 
party advocated reciprocity with the United 
States. In three of its tariff acts the Conserv- 
ative government inserted sections which pro- 
vided that as soon as Canadian farm, forest, 
and mineral products were admitted free of duty 
into the United States, similar products of the 
United States should be admitted duty free into 
Canada. 

Three or four times in the years from 1867 to 
191 1 members of Conservative administrations 
journeyed from Ottawa to Washington to urge 
governments there to accept the long-standing 

C395] 



Organs 

take 

their 

cue 

from 

caucus 



A 

volte 

face 

by 

Liberal 

organs 

in 1897- 

1898 



Volte 
face 
of 

Conserv- 
ative 
organs 
in 1911 



Conserv- 
ative 

record on 
reciproc- 
ity 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

offers of reciprocity embodied in Canadian tariffs; 
and during these thirty-four years organs of the 
Conservative party never ceased to emphasize the 
importance of reciprocity to the farmers, lumber- 
men, miners, and fishermen of the Dominion. 

In the United States tariff act of 1910, the 
government at Washington proclaimed its willing- 
ness to establish reciprocity, not by treaty, as in 
1854, but by concurrent legislation. The Liberal 
government of 1 896-191 1 promptly and cordially 
accepted the long-desired overtures from Washing- 
ton. Resolutions preliminary to a bill to make 
effective the reciprocity agreement were intro- 
duced in the house of commons. The Con- 
servatives went into caucus on the resolutions. 
There, at the instance of the protected manu- 
facturers and the railway and transport companies, 
it was decided that the resolutions must be 
opposed; that the Liberal government must 
either withdraw them, or be compelled by ob- 
struction in the house of commons to dissolve 
parliament. 

Within a week after the caucus at Ottawa 
every Conservative newspaper organ in the 
Dominion was vehemently declaring that reci- 
procity with the United States would ruin the 
Dominion and endanger the connection of Canada 
with the British Empire. 

These close and long-standing relations of 
political parties with the newspapers — relations 
as old as Confederation — explain the change 

C396] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

in the press gallery after a general election that Organs 
has resulted in a change of government at Ottawa. ^ 
The custom is based on the presumption that of 
reporters of newspapers that are organs of the ^ ^*®^ 
government will, as a matter of course, give most 
attention to the supporters of the government in 
the house of commons, and that reporters for 
organs of the opposition will give most attention 
to the speeches of the members who sit to the 
speaker's left. 

Much more than at either Westminster or joumai- 
Washington, the press gallery at Ottawa is a ^®™ 
stepping-stone to a career in Dominion politics stepping- 
or in the civil service. But a journalist whose ^toneto 
seat in the press gallery is to the speaker's left career 
expects nothing so long as the political party 
to which he is attached is in opposition. 

Parliamentary debates are not as fully reported News- 
in the newspapers as are debates at Westminster p^p^*" 
in the newspapers of the United Kingdom. For of 
fifteen or sixteen years before the war they were debates 
not as fully reported as they were in the first 
thirty-five years of Confederation. As the 
Dominion developed, and the material prosperity 
of a part of its population greatly increased, new 
interests — industrial, financial, and social — 
pressed on the attention of the newspapers. 

Popular interest in the debates, and in the 
contention of political parties at Ottawa, more- 
over, obviously slackened after the only well- 
marked dividing line between Conservatives and 

[ 397 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Dis- Liberals disappeared in 1897. This line was 

appear- obliterated by a Liberal government. Protec- 

of old tionist tariffs — the Cayley and Gait tariffs of 

uLT*"^ 1858 and 1859 — constituted a dividing line 

between between Conservatives and Liberals in the era 

political q£ ^Yxe United Provinces. After Confederation 

parties 

protection was again a dividing line — the most 
obvious dividing line — from 1870 to 1897. 
The line disappeared completely after official 
Liberalism at Ottawa, as distinct from Liberalism 
in the constituencies, was suddenly converted 
to the Conservative policies of high tariffs and 
generous bounties to some Canadian industries. 
Absence No Outstanding political principle thereafter 
^^ divided Conservatives from Liberals. No new 

political . ... . _^ . . 

Issues issues based on principles arose in Dominion 
politics until 1910, when there was some contro- 
versy over the form in which Canada should 
contribute to the strengthening of the British 
navy, and 191 1, when the question of reciprocity 
with the United States was revived. 
Easing A great slackening of political propaganda 

down of jj^ ^]^g constituencies followed the volte face of 
propa- the Liberals on protection in 1897; for there was 
ganda ^q longer a question to be discussed which aroused 
popular interest all over the Dominion. With 
the slowing down of political activities there was 
a decline in popular interest in the debates in 
the house of commons, which soon manifested 
itself in a curtailment of the space appropriated 
in the newspapers to parliamentary reports. 
[398] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

Even under these newer conditions — the Reports 
wider range of pubHc interests other than political ^eb^tes 
demanding continuous attention from the news- 
papers, and the absence in the years from 1897 
to 1914 of any well-marked and long-continuing 
dividing line between Conservatives and Liberals 
— debates in the house of commons are much 
more fully reported in Canadian newspapers 
than are debates in Congress in newspapers in 
the United States. 

Proceedings in parliament are also accorded More 
more continuous attention in the editorial columns ^^", 

cussion 

of the Canadian newspapers than is given in of 
American newspapers to proceedings in Congress. ^"*^<=^ 
Dominion politics, moreover, are much more Canada 



discussed in the home, on the street, in hotel „ 

' ' United 



than in 
United 

corridors and clubs, and in the street cars and the states 
railway trains, in Canada than federal politics 
are so discussed in the United States. 

In some aspects of industrial and social life — ■ Kinship 
particularly of social life — Canadians are more °^ 

. . . . political 

akin to their American neighbors than to the ufein 

people of England or Scotland. But Canadian Canada 

political life in most of its aspects is much more pouticai 

akin to political Hfe in England than to political ^®"^ 

IT • U TT • J C England 

hte in the United btates. 

Especially is this true as regards popular 
interest in the proceedings of parliament. It is 
due partly to the love of Canadians for political 
affairs and political discussions; partly to the 
stimulus given to popular political education 

C399] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

and discussion by the fact that at Ottawa there 
are men whose names and figures are familiar 
all over the Dominion, confronting each other 
decade after decade in political rivalry; and partly 
to the fact that at Ottawa there is no fixed period 
for an administration, and that any day a political 
crisis may develop there that may involve the 
fate of a government and confront the Dominion 
with a general election. 



Rules of 
British 
parlia- 
ment 
adopted 
at 

Confed- 
eration 



VII. Procedure of the House — Debate on the 
Address to the Governor-General 

Procedure of the house of commons is deter- 
mined by rules which are continuing — ■ rules 
which are not adopted by each new house in the 
first days of a new parliament, but which are 
part of what may be described as the law of 
parliament. 

The legislatures of the old British North Ameri- 
can provinces east of the Great Lakes, when they 
were organized in the years between 1758 and 
1792, each adopted, as far as was practicable 
amid their primitive surroundings, the rules of 
procedure of the parliament at Westminster. 
From 1 841 to 1866 the legislature of the United 
Provinces was governed by the rules of the 
British parliament; and in the first session of 
the parliament of the Dominion the rules of the 
house of commons were closely modeled on the 
rules of the house of commons at Westminster. 

[ 400 ] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

A general rule — Rule No. i — was then Rule 
adopted, a rule still in force at Ottawa, which °* 
declares that in all cases not provided for in the 
rules, "the rules, usages, and forms of proceedings 
of the house of commons of the United Kingdom 
of Great Britain and Ireland, in force on the first 
day of July, 1867, shall be followed." ^ 

Not all the rules and usages of Westminster No 
are practicable at Ottawa. At Westminster, ^^^^^^ 
because there is in England an established church, Ottawa 
prayers in the house of commons are read by a 
chaplain, who is of the Church of England. 
In Canada there is no national church. There 
is no chaplain of the house of commons. Prayers 
are read by the speaker. 

At Westminster forty members of the house Quorum 
have, since 1640, constituted a quorum. At 
Ottawa, where the number of members is less 
than one third of those at Westminster, twenty 
members constitute a quorum. 

Every member is bound to attend the house, Noroii- 
unless leave of absence has been given. There is ^^S~Qf 
no call of the roll and no reading of the journals, whips 
as there is in the senate and house at Washington. 
Each political party has its whips — members 
of the party to whom is delegated the duty of 
keeping members in attendance. The organ- 
ization and activities of the whips' offices are 
such that the whereabouts of every member of 
the house is known. 

^ Rules of H. C. of Canada, 1909, i. 

[401 ] 



from the 
throne 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Keeping Pairs for divisions are arranged by the whips; 
^ and on the government whips is thrown the 

responsibihty of keeping a quorum, especially at 
those sittings at which government business is 
before the house. 
Speech Procedure in regard to the speech from the 

throne at the opening of a session at Ottawa is 
identical with that at Westminster. Even the 
form of the speech is the same. The opening 
paragraphs foreshadowing the legislation that is 
to be introduced during the session, and describ- 
ing material conditions in the Dominion, are 
addressed to members of the senate and the house; 
while the paragraph intimating that the govern- 
ment will need votes of money is addressed to the 
house of commons alone. 

The final paragraph commending the measures 
to be submitted to the attention of parliament, 
and invoking the blessing of the Almighty on 
the deliberations, is, like the opening paragraphs, 
addressed to "honorable gentlemen of the sen- 
ate; gentlemen of the house of commons." ^ 
Debate The Speech comes before the house of commons 

address °" ^ motion made from the government benches 
in reply — a motion for which the government is respon- 
speech ^''^^^ — ^'^^^ " ^^ address be presented to his 
excellency, the governor-general, offering the 
thanks of this house to his excellency for the 
gracious speech which he has been pleased to 
make to both houses of parliament." 

1 Cf. H. C. Debates, January 19, 1917. 
[402 ] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



To two of the younger members, members 
who are recognized as men of promise, is assigned 
the duty of proposing and seconding the motion 
for the address of thanks. It is a much-prized 
distinction to be invited by the leader of the house 
to render this service. Only supporters of the 
government are asked to undertake it. 

In accordance with a usage which had its 
origin in the legislature of the United Provinces, 
the motion is proposed by an English-speaking 
member, and seconded by a member from Quebec, 
who addresses the house in French. Thus, at 
the beginning of a new session — usually at the 
second sitting — the house and the Dominion 
are formally reminded of the compact at Con- 
federation that the two languages should be on an 
equality in parliament. 

Except for the introduction of bills, the debate 
on the address in reply to the speech from the 
throne takes precedence of all other business. 
Any question within the realm of Dominion 
politics, or of Empire politics, can be discussed 
when the address is before the house. 

There is no time limit for speeches. It was 
1913 before the house had any rule under which 
a debate on any subject could be closured. So 
far in the history of the new rule it has never 
been applied in the debate on the address, and 
usually from eight to ten sittings are devoted 
to it. 

The first member to address the house after 

[403] 



Motion 

for 

address 



Dual 
language 



Prece- 
dence 
for 

debate 
on 
motion 



No time 
limit for 
speeches 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Leader 
of 

oppo- 
sition 
and the 
address 



Criticism 
of 

govern- 
ment 



Expert 
criticism 



the motion has been proposed and seconded is 
the leader of the opposition, who avails himself 
of this opportunity to make a general criticism 
of the policies of the government. The premier 
and leader of the house replies to the speech 
from the front opposition bench; and thereafter 
the debate on the address becomes general. 

All the leaders on the two front benches take 
part. It is a custom also that ex-ministers in 
opposition criticize the policies and measures of 
their successors in office. Thus, if the minister 
of finance in the late government is of the house, 
he directs his criticism to the policies that originate 
in the department of finance; and the minister 
of finance, when he intervenes in the debate, 
replies at length, and in detail, to the criticisms 
offered by his predecessor in office. In the same 
way it often happens that the minister of the 
interior replies to an ex-minister of the interior, 
and the postmaster-general to the member of the 
opposition who held this office in the preceding 
administration. 

The custom so described gives a zest and inter- 
est to the debate, an interest that extends far 
beyond the house and the galleries. It results 
in a discussion of the policies and administration 
of the principal departments of state by men 
who from their experience are regarded as experts. 

Back-bench members on both sides of the 
house, in the debate on the address, have the 
best opportunity of the session of expressing 

[404] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

their opinions and convictions; and, through 
the official verbatim reports of the debates and 
the newspapers, of presenting their opinions and 
convictions to their constituents. 

VIII. The Constitutional Value of the Debate 
on the Address 

The debate has much more than a formal or More 
ceremonial value. It has a larger value than of ^_* 
affording ex-ministers an opportunity of criticizing moniai 
their successors in office, and back-bench members ^*^"® 
of addressing their constituents from the floor of 
the house of commons. 

It offers the house, and through the house, the Discus- 
Dominion, two opportunities that at times are of ^1.°° °^- 
much constitutional value. It can be, and often Dominion 
has been, a debate on the state of the Dominion, 
an opportunity of calling the attention of gov- 
ernment to unfavorable conditions In the body 
politic, for which It Is urgent that some remedy 
shall be devised. 

It also affords an opportunity to the opposition ChaUen- 
of challenging the policy of the government, p^jf^j^g 
of testing, by a division, the feeling of the house, of 
and of Informing the constituencies of the grounds ^^' 
and expediency of the challenge. 

If the opposition In caucus has decided on Amend- 
challenglng any policy of the government — motioV** 
on a challenge that is to be pressed to a division 
— the mode of procedure Is quite simple. No 
objection is raised by the opposition to the address 

[405] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Motion 
of want 
of con- 
fidence 
in 

govern- 
ment 



Presen- 
tation 
of 

address 
to 

governor- 
general 



of thanks to the governor-general. To object 
to the motion would be discourteous, if not dis- 
loyal, despite the fact that the speech from the 
throne is framed by the cabinet. An amendment 
is offered of which the purpose is threefold. 
It expresses concurrence with the proposed address 
of thanks; condemns the policy which is assailed; 
and expresses regret that in the speech from the 
throne there is no announcement that the policy 
challenged is to be amended or abandoned. 

An amendment framed on these lines is equiv- 
alent to a motion of want of confidence in the 
government. It is so regarded on both sides of 
the house; and for a division on such an amend- 
ment the government and opposition whips 
beat up all the strength that each party can com- 
mand. No government that was defeated on an 
amendment to the address could hope to carry 
on through the session. The premier would have 
no alternative but to tender his resignation to 
the governor-general. 

After the motion for the address of thanks has 
been adopted by the house, it is followed by 
another motion, proposed and seconded from the 
treasury bench, that "the said address be en- 
grossed, and presented to his excellency the 
governor-general, by such members of this house 
as are of the honorable the privy council." ^ 
This is a formal motion on which there is no 
debate. 



Cf. H. C. Debates, January 30, 1917. 



[406] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



IX. The Select Standing Committees of 
the House 

While the house is occupied with the debate 
on the address, a special committee, on which 
are supporters of the government and members 
of the opposition, has prepared lists of members 
to compose the select standing committees of 
the house — committees which continue only 
during the session in which they are appointed. 

There are eleven of these committees, in addi- 
tion to a committee that has charge of the official 
reports of the debates, and a committee that, 
in association with a committee of the senate, 
has charge of the library of parliament. 

Supporters of the government are in a majority 
on each committee. Membership of the com- 
mittees varies from 25 to 119. The importance 
of a committee, and the volume of work that is 
referred to it, are indicated by the number of its 
members. 

The committees are: 

Members 

1. Privileges and elections 34 

2. Railways, canals, and telegraph lines 119 

3. Miscellaneous private bills 64 

4. Standing orders 31 

5. Printing 25 

6. Public accounts 63 

7. Banking and commerce 95 

8. Agriculture and colonization 94 

[407] 



Nomina- 
tions of 
standing 
com- 
mittees 



Member- 
ship of 
com- 
mittees 



Descrip- 
tion 
of 

com- 
mittees 



of com- 
mittees 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

9. Marine and fisheries 36 

10. Mines and minerals 30 

1 1 . Forests, waterways, and water powers 3 1 

Election The Special committee which has prepared the 
lists of members to compose these committees 
makes its report as soon as the address to the 
governor-general has been adopted. The govern- 
ment, in practice, is responsible for the organ- 
ization of the house for this committee work — 
work that is quite distinct from the work of com- 
mittees of the whole house, such as the committee 
of ways and means and the committee of supply. 
Powers The acceptance of the report of the special 

of com- committee is moved by the leader of the house. 

mittees n i • • i 

By this motion, when agreed to, the committees 
are established and empowered to examine and 
inquire into all such matters and things as may 
be referred to them by the house; called upon to 
report from time to time their observations and 
opinions thereon; and empowered to send for 
persons, papers, and records.^ 
Watch- From time to time the committees avail them- 

*^°s selves of the power to send for persons, papers, 

treasury and records. Most use of this power is made by 
the committee on public accounts. It investi- 
gates the expenditure of public money, and may 
be described as the parliamentary watchdog of 
the treasury. 

1 Cf. H. C. Debates, January 31, 1917. 
[408] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



X. Procedure on Bills 



Procedure in the house of commons on bills is, Bills 

in its main lines, almost identical with that in the o^eimte 

senate. But there is a range of bills which cannot in house 

originate elsewhere than in the house of commons, 1 "'™' 

o ^ mons 

In the senate there is neither committee of ways 
and means nor committee of supply; for bills 
imposing any charge on the people of the Dominion 
or making any grant for the services of the crown 
cannot originate in the upper house. 

"All aids and supplies granted to his majesty Aids and 
by the parliament of Canada," reads house rule ^^^ ®^ 
No. 78, " are the sole gift of the house of commons; 
and all bills for granting such aids and supplies 
ought to begin with the house, as it is the un- 
doubted right of the house to direct, limit, and 
appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, con- 
siderations, conditions, limitations, and qualifica- 
tions of such grants, which are not alterable by 
the senate." 

All money bills — all bills imposing a charge BUis that 
on the people of Canada — must be based on 
resolutions of the house of commons; and the with 
usage is that private members — members not p^^**® 

- . . . . members 

of the cabinet — cannot introduce bills of this 
description. The bills must originate with the 
government, and the house can act on them only 
with the leave of the crown. ^ 

^ "The provision which prevents the house passing any 
such bill unless it shall first have been recommended by message 

[409] 



originate 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Reso- No bill, moreover, relating to trade, or the 

lutions alteration of laws concerning trade, can be intro- 
nary to duced Until "the proposition shall have been first 
^^^^ considered in a committee of the whole house, and 

agreed unto by the house." ^ This means that 
there must be resolutions preliminary to the bill, 
resolutions which add an additional stage to the 
stages of an ordinary bill. 
Intro- Two days' notice must be given of a motion 

ductton f^j. leave to introduce a bill, resolution, or address 
for the appointment of any committee. On the 
day designated leave to introduce a bill is given, 
the bill is introduced, and it is read a first time. 
Except in the case of important bills, introduced 
by the government, there is seldom any debate 
at first reading. A brief explanation of the general 
aim or purpose of the bill is all that is offered by 
the member who introduces it. 
Second At second reading the case for the bill is fully 

reading presented. It is at second reading that the house 
decides for or against the principle of the bill. 
But if there is opposition, and it is desired that 
the house shall not commit itself on the principle, 
a second course is open. 
"Six It can be moved that the bill be given "six 

^T^f months' hoist." This motion is equivalent to 
the motion at Westminster that "the bill be 

from the governor-general, emphasizes the responsibility 
of the ministry for the expenditure of every dollar of public 
money." — Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 95-96. 
^ Rules of the House of Commons, 1909, Rule 48. 

[410] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



read a second time this day six months." If 
the motion is carried, it is as fatal for the bill 
as a direct rejection, for nothing more is heard 
during a session of a bill that has been given the 
six months' hoist. 

If the house accepts the principle of a bill at 
second reading, the bill goes either to one of the 
standing committees, or it is considered in com- 
mittee of the whole house. If it goes to a stand- 
ing committee, committee stage in the house is not 
omitted. The purpose of sending it to a stand- 
ing committee is to perfect its details, and thereby 
lessen the work on the bill in committee of the 
whole house. 

At second-reading stage, and also at the third 
reading of a bill, a member can speak only once. 
In committee of the whole the bill is considered 
clause by clause. At this stage, unless the closure 
has been moved and a time limit fixed for com- 
mittee stage, there is no restriction on the number 
of times a member can speak, or on the number 
of amendments he can offer, provided that the 
amendments are germane to the bill. 

From committee the bill is reported to the 
house. This is a distinct stage — a stage at 
which, when amendments have been made in 
committee, debate and amendments are in order. 
In the event of a bill being reported from commit- 
tee without amendments, report stage is formal. 

Third reading is the last stage of a bill. It 
then goes to the senate. If the senate amends a 

[411] 



standing 
com- 
mittees 
and 
com- 
mittee 
of the 
whole 



Com- 
mittee 
stage 
in the 
house 



Report 

stage 



Third 
reading 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Royal 
assent 



BlUs 

formerly 

reserved 



Instruc- 
tions 
to 

governor- 
general 



Revision 
of 

instruc- 
tions 
in 1878 



bill and the house disagrees, the question is settled 
by messages or by conference, usually by message. 

The royal assent must be given before a bill 
becomes law. The British North America act 
provides that when a bill is presented to the 
governor-general for the king's assent, "he shall 
declare, according to his discretion, but subject 
to the provisions of this act, and to his majesty's 
instructions, either that he assents thereto in 
the king's name, or that he withholds the king's 
assent, or that he reserves the bill for the signifi- 
cation of the king's pleasure." 

For a few years after Confederation certain 
bills, including all divorce bills, were reserved, 
and did not become law until the signification 
from the crown had been received at Ottawa from 
London, a fact which was announced by procla- 
mation issued by the governor-general. 

This procedure, a procedure established in 
connection with certain classes of bills in the 
days of the legislature of the United Provinces, 
was in accordance with the instructions received 
by the governor-general on his appointment. 
But in 1876, Blake, minister of justice in the 
Mackenzie cabinet of 1 873-1 878, for the govern- 
ment, objected to this and other provisions in 
the royal instructions to the governor-general. 

Blake's case was that the instructions to which 
the Mackenzie government objected were incon- 
sistent with the advanced stage of responsible 
government existing in the Dominion. 

[412] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



"Canada," the colonial office was reminded in this Blake 
memorandum of July, 1876, "is not merely a colony or a 
province; she is a dominion composed of an aggregate of 
seven large provinces federally united under an imperial 
charter, which expressly recites that her constitution is to 
be similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. Nay, 
more, besides the powers with which she is invested over a 
large part of the affairs of the inhabitants of the several 
provinces, she enjoys absolute powers of legislation and 
administration over the people and territories of the north- 
west, out of which she has already created one province, 
and is empowered to create others, with representative insti- 
tutions. 

"These circumstances, together with the vastness of her 
area, the numbers of her free population, the character of 
the representative institutions and of the responsible govern- 
ment which as citizens of the various provinces and of Canada 
her people have so long enjoyed, all point to the propriety 
of dealing with the question in hand in a manner very dif- 
ferent from that which might be fitly adopted with reference 
to a single and comparatively small and young colony. 

"Besides the general spread of the principles of constitu- 
tional freedom there has been, in reference to the colonies, 
a recognized difference between their circumstances resulting 
in the application to those in a less advanced condition of a 
lesser measure of self-government, while others are said to 
be invested with the fullest freedom of political government; 
and it may be fairly stated that there is no dependency of 
the British crown which is entitled to so full an application 
of the principlies of constitutional freedom as the Dominion 
of Canada." 

The erection of another landmark in the consti- 
tutional development of Canada, in the progress 
of the Dominion to the status of a nation, re- 
sulted from the interchanges of 1876 between 
Ottawa and the colonial office. The commission 

C413] 



The case 
for 

larger 
powers 



Canada's 
claim for 
constitu- 
tional 
freedom 



AU 

claims 

conceded 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Veto 

power 

dormant 



and instructions given to the governor-general of 
the Dominion were recast when Lome succeeded 
DufFerin in 1878. The principles that Blake 
and the Mackenzie administration had insisted 
upon were conceded by the colonial office; "and 
since then there has been no dispute with ref- 
erence to ministerial responsibility, either with 
regard to the assent to bills, the granting of par- 
dons, or anything else." ^ 

As a result of this revision in 1878, and of the 
greatly increased power which the government 
at Ottawa gradually drew to itself under the 
unwritten, as well as the written, constitution 
of the Dominion, the power to veto or reserve 
a bill is dormant. It has so long been out of use 
as to be almost forgotten in Canada;^ and parlia- 
ment at Ottawa passes bills with as little appre- 
hension of a veto as parliament at Westminster, 
where the veto power of the crown, though the 
exercise of it was threatened by George III in 
1774 and again by George IV in 1829,^ has not 
been used since the reign of Queen Anne. 



^ Lash, " The Working of Federal Institutions in Canada," 
-85; Keith, " Responsible Government in the Dominions," 



240, 



Cf. Rlddell, "Constitution of Canada," 97, and Note J 
XIX, III. ■ 

^ Cf. James Anson Farrer, "The Monarchy in Politics," 

82, 128. 



[414] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

XL Government Business: Private Members* 
Bills and Private Bill Legislation 

Bills introduced in the house of commons are of Three 
three classes: government bills, private members' of^^^uis 
bills, and private bill legislation. 

All bills for which the government is respon- Govem- 
sible are in the first of these classes. In normal ^j^ 
times government business monopolizes two 
thirds of the time of the house. The two impor- 
tant government bills — bills which occupy much 
of the time of the house each session — • are (i) 
the finance bill or the budget, and (2) the bill 
voting supplies for all the services of the Dominion. 

The finance bill is framed by the minister of Budget 
finance. Before it is introduced, any increases 
or decreases in taxation that are embodied in it 
have been discussed and approved by the cabinet. 
The minister of finance makes his budget state- 
ment on a motion that the house go into commit- 
tee of ways and means; and it is on resolutions, 
considered in committee of ways and means, 
that the finance bill is founded. 

The statement of the minister is long and de- Speech 
tailed. Two, and sometimes three, hours are 
occupied in its submission to the house. It covers of 
the receipts and expenditures of the government 
for the fiscal year, and includes a detailed sta- 
tistical survey of the material progress of the Do- 
minion. Finally, the changes in taxation are 
announced. Increases or decreases in customs or 

[415] 



of 
minister 



finance 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Indirect 
taxation 



Sources 

of 

revenue 



Private 
members 
and 

amend- 
ments to 
finance 
bill 



Inland revenue duties go Into effect Immediately 
on their announcement In the house of commons 
by the minister of finance. 

People In Canada, In normal times, do not 
come face to face with the tax gatherers of the 
Dominion government. Except for stamps on 
tobacco, cigars, and patent medicines, they are 
never reminded, unless they are Importers, that 
the government at Ottawa Is exercising its powers 
of taxation.^ 

All the revenue Is derived from three sources. 
By far the larger part of It comes from Indirect 
taxation — from (i) customs duties on imports 
and (2) inland or Internal revenue duties on wines, 
spirits, and beer, and on tobacco and patent 
medicines. The third source Is mining royalties, 
payments for leases of lands and of water privi- 
leges, and for services rendered by the govern- 
ment as a carrier of mails, and also as the owner of 
railways, grain elevators, and coastwise steamship 
lines. 

After the resolutions have been adopted in 
committee and embodied In a bill, procedure on 
the bill is much the same as on a non-financial 
measure. But at no stage of the finance bill is it 

^ A tax on excess profits of manufacturing, transport, 
insurance, banking, and other business companies was im- 
posed as a war-time finance measure in 1916. Except for 
this, and some other direct imposts of the war period, no 
direct taxation has ever been imposed by the Dominion 
parHament. 

[416] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



in order for a private member to move to increase 
any charge imposed by the bill. A motion to 
increase a tax can be made only from the treasury 
bench. A motion to decrease a tax, made by 
any member of the house of commons, is in order; 
and it is on such motions that discussions occur 
when the house is in committee on the schedules 
of a tariff bill. 

Debates on the budget extend over an even 
larger number of sittings than the debate on the 
address to the governor-general; for almost any 
aspect of Dominion politics can be discussed when 
the budget is before the house. 

In the period from 1878 to 1896, when the 
Liberal opposition was conducting in the constit- 
uencies, as well as in the house and the senate, 
a vigorous and continuous propaganda for a tariff 
for revenue only, debates on the finance bill ran 
on for weeks, and the people of the Dominion 
looked on with keen interest. 

After the Liberals in 1897 became as protection- 
ist as the Conservatives, and were responsible 
for the highest protective tariffs ever enacted at 
Ottawa from 1867 to the war, there was not a 
member left in the house of commons to advocate 
tariffs for revenue only, or even to oppose in- 
creases in the tariff made by the Liberal govern- 
ment. Debates on the finance bill were greatly 
curtailed, because as the Conservatives were all 
protectionists there was no longer any opposition 
in the house to a high protective tariff; and there 

C417] 



Wide 
scope of 
discus- 
sion on 
budget 



Budget 
debates 
of 1878- 
1896 



Less 
interest- 
ing after 
Liberals 
become 
protec- 
tionists 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Finance 
bUl in 
senate 



Com- 
mittee 
of 
supply 



Esti- 
mates 
for 
state 
depart- 
ments 



Value of 
work in 
com- 
mittee 
of 
supply 



was a corresponding decline in popular interest 
in the budget debate. 

From the house the finance bill goes to the 
senate. There the stages of the bill are merely 
formal, and the debates of only academic interest. 
The senate can reject a finance bill, but only at 
the cost of bringing the various governmental 
services of the Dominion to a standstill. It is 
denied all power of amendment. In this respect 
the senate stands in the same subordinate position 
towards the house of commons that the house of 
lords has held since 1678 towards the house of 
commons at Westminster. 

In committee of supply the estimates are taken 
department by department. Each minister is 
in charge of the estimates for his department. 
It is his business, at this time, to answer criti- 
cisms, and to defend any items in the estimates 
that are challenged by the opposition. 

Carrying the estimates through committee is 
a long process. It involves much close work on 
the floor of the house for ministers, especially 
for ministers in charge of spending departments, 
such as the departments of public works, rail- 
ways and canals, the interior, and marine and 
fisheries. 

A large part of the session is occupied with these 
votes of money. But some of the most effective 
work of the house is done at the numerous sit- 
tings in committee; for in committee of supply 
the house can exercise close supervision of the 

[418] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

expenditures, administration, and general policies 
of all the state departments. 

No matter how large a majority a government Check 
may have, or how mechanically obedient its "^ ^^^^ 
majority may be to the summons and instructions methods 
of the government whips, the fact that there 
will be detailed and searching discussion by the 
opposition of the estimates is, in itself, a check 
on slipshod methods, and on plans and policies 
that will not admit of full discussion in committee 
of supply. 

The house is not continuously in committee of Appro- 
supply. The vote for one department is carried, f^f***"* 
Then some other business is taken up, and when 
this is finished the house again goes into com- 
mittee. After all the votes have been passed, 
they are embodied in what is known as the 
" appropriation bill." The final stages of this 
bill are taken in the closing days of the session, 
in order to get the supplies of the whole year into 
one bill. 

The appropriation bill, after it has been passed Appro- 

by the senate, is returned to the commons; and P"*t^°° 

, . , , . bill at 

when the royal assent is about to be given to bar of 

this and other bills, and the commons are sum- ^^^^^^ 

moned to the senate chamber for the purpose, 

the bill which grants money for the service of 

the crown is carried by the speaker to the bar 

of the senate, and handed by him to the clerk 

of the parliament to receive the royal assent. 

The final stage of the appropriation bill is in 

C419] 



than 
financial 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Final an ordinary session the only occasion on which 

a'*ro-° ^^^ speaker is the representative of the house in 

priation communications with the governor-general; for it 

^^^ will be recalled that when the house has adopted 

an address of thanks to the governor-general 

for the speech from the throne, at the opening 

of the session, it delegates by resolution, to 

members of the privy council — to members 

of the cabinet — the duty of presenting the 

address to the governor-general. 

Govern- Government bills are those which come to the 

f|f.'^* house from the cabinet. All these bills originate 

other in one or other of the state departments; for 

every government bill alters or varies the functions 

and responsibilities, or throws new functions and 

responsibilities on some executive department. 

A government bill intended to effect momentous 
or far-reaching changes, or embodying an impor- 
tant policy of the government, is sometimes intro- 
duced by the premier, who nowadays is always 
free of the responsibilities of a heavily burdened 
state department. Otherwise, it is the rule that 
a government bill is introduced by the minister 
who is at the head of the department in which the 
bill originated. 
Caucus Members on the government side of the house 

**" know beforehand the principles and main lines 

govern- . 

ment of a government bill. These they learn in caucus 
in the early days of the session; and in this way 
the caucus serves as a link between the govern- 
ment forces in the house and the cabinet. 
[420] 



bUls 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



In the case of a government bill of first-class 
importance, there is usually a caucus on the bill 
sometime between its introduction and second- 
reading stage; and from the rank and file on the 
government benches loyal support is expected. 

A government suffers a loss of prestige in 
parliament and in the constituencies if it is com- 
pelled by division within its ranks, or by the tac- 
tics of the opposition, to abandon a bill that has 
been announced in the speech from the throne 
at the opening of the session. 



Loss of 
prestige 
when a 
bUl is 
aban- 
doned 



XII. The Closure 

A government must in each regular session 
carry through parliament the finance bill and the 
appropriation bill. Each session, also, there are 
two or three important bills, embodying its 
policies, that it is essential to its success as a 
government should be enacted. 

Despite these conditions it was 1913 before 
any government had, by the rules, sufficient 
command over the time of the house of commons 
to prevent its legislative plans from being thwarted 
by obstruction and filibustering by the opposition. 
The house of commons at Ottawa was late among 
legislative bodies in the English-speaking world 
in adopting a closure rule. 

By filibustering the Conservative opposition in 
191 1 made it impossible for the Laurier govern- 
ment to carry a reciprocity bill through the house 

. . [ 421 ] 



Parlia- 
mentary 
program 
of 

govern- 
ment 



Obstruc- 
tion and 
fili- 
bustering 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



AfiU- 
buster 
that 
ended 
fili- 
bustering 

Closure 
rule 
of 1913 



Old 
rules 
that 
per- 
mitted 
minority 
to 
control 



of commons. Obstruction to the bill forced the 
Liberal government to advise the governor- 
general to dissolve a parliament which, in the 
normal course, had still nearly two and a half 
years to run. 

Two sessions later — in 1913 — ^the Liberals, 
then in opposition, attempted similar tactics on 
the bill of the Borden government for a grant 
of thirty-five million dollars to be expended in 
adding three battleships to the British navy. 

Realizing after parliament had been in session 
for five months that no progress was being made, 
and that the opposition was intent on forcing the 
abandonment of the navy bill by obstruction, 
the Borden government proposed the adoption 
of a new rule. The rule, which is now in force, 
prohibits debate at certain technical stages of 
a bill preliminary to those that have been here 
described, and also empowers a member of the 
cabinet to move that there be a time limit to a 
debate, either in the house or in committee of 
the whole. With the closure rule thus brought 
into operation no speaker can hold the floor for 
longer than twenty minutes. 

In explaining the need and purpose of the new 
rule, Borden reminded the house that under the 
then existing rules there were nineteen stages, in- 
cluding committee, at which it was possible for 
members to discuss a measure. He stated also 
that it had been affirmed by some members of the 
house that it was absolutely impossible for the 

[422] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



majority to pass any measure without the consent 
of the minority.^ 

Long before 1913 there had been a widespread 
conviction in the Dominion that an amendment 
of the rules of the house was necessary. " Liberty 
of speech in the commons," the Globe, of Toronto, 
a Liberal journal, had declared during the parlia- 
mentary crisis of 1911,^ "has degenerated into 
license, and half a dozen inveterate talkers bore 
a weary house with talks that were old two 
thousand years ago, until the wonder is that 
enough members can be induced to remain in the 
chamber to make a quorum." 

Members of the Liberal administration in the 
general election of 191 1 had also given pledges 
that if the Liberals were again returned to power 
the rules of the house should be promptly amended 
so as to make impossible filibustering like that 
which compelled the Laurier government to 
abandon the reciprocity bill. 

The new rule was, however, treated by the 
Liberal opposition as a party measure. There 
were nine days of debate on it, and the rule was 
carried only by a parliamentary manoeuver by 
which the opposition was foiled in its intention 
of obstructing its adoption.^ 

The objections made by the Liberals were that 
the new rule endangered freedom of speech; 
that it would tend to Americanize the Canadian 

1 Cf. H. C. Debates, April 9, 1913. ^ April 22, 1911, 

^ Cf. "Canadian Annual Review," 191 3, 164-167. 

[423] 



A liberty 
of speech 
that was 
long 
abused 



Liberals 
promise 
to end 
filibus- 
tering 



They 
oppose 
the new 
rule 



"Ameri- 
canizing 
Canadian 
parlia- 
ment" 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Oppo- 
sition 
from 
French 
Canada 



French- 
Cana- 
dians 
fear 
a star 
chamber 



Less 
drastic 
than 
closure 
rules at 
West- 
minster 
and 

Washing- 
ton 



parliament and establish the tyranny of the 
pohtical boss. 

From Quebec there was a specific and remark- 
able objection. "My province at the time of 
Confederation," said Lemieux, who had been 
postmaster-general in the Laurier administration, 
"accepted the compact of Cartier and Mac- 
donald that the rules, usages, and customs of the 
British house of commons up to 1867 should be 
binding on the parliament of Canada in the 
future. Therefore, you have no right to impose 
on the minority in this house rules which have 
been created since 1867 — rules which tend to 
abridge the rights of the minority." 

Lemieux was apprehensive that the new rule 
would jeopardize the rights of French-Canadians. 
"Has any one the right," he asked, "to alter a 
compact — 'to change the constitution; for the 
rules adopted in 1867 are embodied in that com- 
pact, in that constitution; and you cannot deface 
them. Canada, with such drastic rules, is no 
longer government by parliament but by the 
cabinet. It is a revival of the star chamber." ^ 

The rules as they stood after the amendment 
of 1913 — an amendment adopted by a vote of 
108 to 73 — as regards closure of debate and the 
shutting off of amendments in committee — are 
not nearly so comprehensive or so drastic as the 
closure rules at Westminster or at Washington. 
There is no debate under a five or a ten minute 
1 H. C. Debates, April 14-15, 1913. 

[424] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

rule, as there is in the house of representatives; 
and no closure by compartments, as there is in 
the British house of commons. 

All substantial or obviously bona-fide motions Bona- 
which bring into question the propriety of passing ^g,^ate 
any bill or vote are as debatable today as they were stm 
before 1913; and at least one day's notice must ^^%g^ 
be given from the treasury bench of the intention 
of the government to move that a continued 
debate shall not be further adjourned. 

The rules as they stood before 1913 were Old rules 

adapted to conditions which ceased to exist at the '^^'^^ °* 

. pro- 

turn of the twentieth century, when the great vinciai 

material expansion of Canada began and the ^^°^^ 

Dominion took rank among nations. 



XIII. Private Members' Bills and Private 
Bill Legislation 

A private or unofficial member of the house of Oppor- 
commons has at least four opportunities of *^^®^ 
exercising his parliamentary abilities, and con- private 
vincing his constituency that he can be of service ™®™''®" 
at Ottawa. They are opportunities, moreover, 
that are distinct from the service he renders as a 
supporter of the government or a member of the 
opposition, or as a member of a standing com- 
mittee; and distinct also from the local service 
which every member is expected to render to his 
constituency. 

Under the rules it is possible for a private 

[425] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Ques- 
tions to 
ministers 



Rules 
as to 
ques- 
tions 



Oral and 

written 

answers 



Value of 
ques- 
tions 



Attention 
directed 
to 

matters 
of urgent 
public 
impor- 
tance 



member to address to ministers questions of 
which written notice has been given, and also 
questions of which written notice has not been 
given, which are addressed to ministers when the 
orders of the day are moved, or at the adjourn- 
ment of the house. 

Questions may be put to ministers relating to 
public affairs; and to other members relating to 
any bill, motion, or other public matter con- 
nected with the business of the house. In putting 
a question no argument or opinion can be offered; 
and a minister in replying to a question must not 
argue or put forward any opinion. 

Answers to some questions are given orally. 
To others the answers are in writing. In either 
case the answers are embodied in the official 
report of the debate. 

Much information of Dominion-wide value is 
thus at times elicited from ministers; and infor- 
mation of value to a province, or to particular 
interests in a province, is forthcoming at almost 
every sitting of the house through these formal 
and informal questions. 

A member may at any sitting of the house 
initiate a discussion on a definite matter of urgent 
public importance, provided twenty members 
rise in their places to support his motion for leave 
to move the adjournment of the house. 

The discussion takes place on the motion so 
made for adjournment. The rules carefully 
safeguard this valuable privilege. A motion to 

[426] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 



discuss a matter of urgent public importance 
cannot be made to revive a discussion of a 
matter previously discussed in the same session of 
parliament. The motion must not anticipate a 
matter — bill, motion, or vote — which has been 
previously appointed for consideration by the 
house, and it must not raise a question of privilege. 

In a country of immense area like Canada, and 
of varying climatic conditions, the privilege of 
every private member of thus calling the atten- 
tion of the house and the government to a matter 
of urgent public importance is of peculiar value. 
Members avail themselves of it to call attention 
to an unexpected failure of a crop; to a disaster 
to a fishing fleet; or to a labor dispute of a far- 
reaching character. The privilege may also be 
exercised to call attention to international com- 
plications, such as may arise in connection with 
Asiatics on the Pacific Coast, or some incident on 
the American border line. 

A statement for the government follows a 
motion on an urgent matter of public importance; 
and in times of stress or crisis such statements 
have a quieting influence, particularly in cases 
of great disasters; for in such cases the debate 
on the motion elicits from the government a 
statement of the steps it is taking to afford 
relief. 

A third opportunity afforded to private members 
is that of submitting motions to the house in favor 
of reforms or amendments of the law. The 

C427] 



Roles 
as to 
these 
motions 
for 

adjourn- 
ment 



Peculiar 
value of 
these 
motions 



Times 

of 

stress 

or 

crisis 



Motions 
In favor 
of 
reforms 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Private 

members' 

bUls 



Private- 
bill 
legis- 
lation 



Propa- 
ganda 
for 
reform 



Govern- 
ment 
accept- 
ance of 
private 
members' 
bills 



fourth is the opportunity open to members of 
submitting bills to the house. 

Private members' bills are distinguished from 
(i) bills originating with the government and 
(2) private-bill legislation — a description which 
comprises divorce bills and bills for the incor- 
poration of transport, industrial, and financial 
undertakings and of ecclesiastical, educational, 
and philanthropic institutions. 

The stages of all bills coming within the term 
"private-bill legislation" are the same as those of 
bills which originate with the government, or with 
private members, with one important exception. 
The detailed examination and perfecting of bills 
incorporating undertakings or institutions, and 
the exercise of vigilance in safe-guarding the pub- 
lic interests, are largely the work of the standing 
committees, to which the bills are referred after 
they have been read a second time in the house. 

Much effective propaganda work for amend- 
ments or extensions of laws is accomplished by 
motions by private members and by private 
members' bills. The case for amendment ^or ex- 
tension is impressed on the government; and by 
discussion of these motions or bills in the house, 
newspaper and other popular support is secured. 

It not infrequently happens that as an outcome 
of these discussions, and the sympathetic interest 
they arouse in the house of commons and in the 
constituencies, the government undertakes to 
introduce a bill for the reform suggested by the 

[428] 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

private member or gives its support to the bill 
which the private member has introduced. 

Apart from the effect on the government of the Amend- 
discussion of private members' bills and motions, ^^^4^4 
at each session of parliament quite a number of by 
beneficent amendments to the law are made by ^J^f 
private members' bills. There is no chance for bers' 
a private member's bill if the government is hos- 
tile to it. In that event supporters of the govern- 
ment act on the instructions of the whip, and the 
bill fails of second reading. 

Questions of privilege cannot be raised as privuege 
questions of urgent public importance. But they 
may be raised at any sitting at the time the 
orders of the day are moved. Scores of questions 
of privilege are raised at every session. 

Occasionally they arise out of revelations in Sensi- 
special committees or in investigations before l*^^'*^^^ 
royal commissions. Much more frequently privi- news- 
lege is invoked in order that members may correct p*^" 

. *= . -^ . criticism 

inaccurate reports in the newspapers of their 
speeches in the house, or repudiate interpretations 
of their speeches which have been published on 
the editorial pages of the newspapers. Among 
members of legislative bodies in English-speaking 
countries, members of the house of commons of 
Canada are most sensitive to newspaper criticism. 



[429] 



National 
Policy 



CHAPTER XV 

THE NATIONAL POLICY OF THE 
DOMINION 

Scope of TN the thirty-five years from 1879 to 1914, 
X and in particular from 1879 to 1897, there 
was no phrase in political discussion in Canada 
in more frequent use than the one, "the National 
Policy of the Dominion," In the earlier part of 
the period the term was used to describe (i) 
the imposition of duties in the Dominion tariff 
to protect home industries against all outside 
competition; (2) the paying of bounties from the 
Dominion treasury to aid the upbuilding of indus- 
try; and (3) the attempt to secure reciprocity 
agreements with the United States and other non- 
British countries, with a view to extending the 
export trade of the Dominion. 
Exten- In the decade before the war the phrase had 

of°i^s come to have a meaning much more comprehen- 
scope sive. It included, as of old, protectionist duties 
in the interest of Canadian industries. It in- 
cluded, until 191 1, lavish bounties to iron and steel 
companies in Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Ontario. 
But it also included (i) the continuous and wide 
immigration propaganda for the peopling of the 
provinces west of the Great Lakes, and (2) the 
development of the national grain route, by rail, 

C430] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 

lake, and canal, from all the grain-growing 
provinces to tidewater ports on the Atlantic. 



I. The Development of the National Policy 

There were protective tariffs in Canada twenty 
years before the phrase "National Policy" was 
brought into general use by the Macdonald 
government in 1879. The United Provinces of 
Upper and Lower Canada had been under a 
protectionist tariff for eight years before Con- 
federation. In British Columbia a protective 
tariff was in operation from 1867 until the province 
came into Confederation in 1871. 

The Pacific Coast province, like the United 
Provinces and the Maritime Provinces, had also 
agitated for reciprocity with the United States; 
and while it was still an independent and isolated 
colony, British Columbia had offered bounties 
for the encouragement of the iron and woolen 
industries, thus anticipating a part of the National 
Policy that was not adopted by the Dominion 
government until 1883, when bounties to encour- 
age the production of pig iron were first paid from 
the treasury at Ottawa. 

The first attempt to estabUsh a National Policy 
for the Dominion was made in 1870, by the Mac- 
donald government of 1 867-1 871. As it was 
developed at that time the National PoUcy 
included protective duties on only some Canadian 
products; and an offer, embodied in the tariff, 

C431] 



Origin of 
National 
Policy 



Antici- 
pations 
of 

National 
Policy by 
British 
Columbia 



First 

attempt 

to 

establish 

Dominion 

National 

Policy 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Low 
tariff 
at 

Confed- 
eration 



Mac- 
donald's 
theory of 
how 

reciproc- 
ity 

could be 
obtained 



Washing- 
ton 

Ignores 
offer 
of 1370 



of reciprocity with the United States. In this 
tariff" of 1870 there were no increases in the duties 
on manufactured goods. These duties then stood 
at fifteen per cent, as imposed by the tariff of the 
United Provinces enacted in 1866. 

Confederation was in sight in 1866; and duties 
in the tariff enacted in that year were made less 
protective than in the tariffs of the United Prov- 
inces from 1858 to 1866, in order to ease the way 
into Confederation for Nova Scotia, New Bruns- 
wick, and Prince Edward Island, provinces in 
which there had never been any protective duties. 

The protective duties in the first National 
Policy tariff were on coal, salt, wheat, flour, 
and hops. In the tariff of 1866 all these articles 
were on the free list. They were made dutiable 
in the tariff of 1870 in accordance with a theory of 
Macdonald's that if Canada was ever to succeed 
in negotiating a second treaty of reciprocity — 
if it was ever to have another era of valuable 
trade relations with the United States, like that 
which was enjoyed under the Elgin-Marcy treaty 
of 1854-1866 — the government at Washington 
must be made to feel that it was in the power of 
the government at Ottawa to restrict trade of 
the United States with Canada. 

The tariff of 1870 produced no results at Wash- 
ington. There were no overtures from the govern- 
ment of the United States for a renewal of the 
trade relations of 1 854-1 866. The duty of fifty 
cents a ton on anthracite and bituminous coal, 

[432] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 

imposed in the interest of the bituminous coal 
mines of Nova Scotia, worked, moreover, great 
hardship on the people of Montreal and of the 
province of Ontario. 

Ontario in 1870 was the only wheat-growing Aim of 
province, and the only province in which com- ^^^^ 
mercial miUing was established. It had long 
been exporting wheat and flour to the United 
Kingdom, and also to Newfoundland. The new 
duties were intended to encourage grain growing 
and milling, by compelling the Maritime Provinces 
to draw their supplies from Ontario. Ontario 
was to be forced to use the coal of a province 
that was over a thousand miles from its western 
border; and in return for the favors to the coal 
owners at Sydney, Island of Cape Breton, the 
people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, were 
to be forced to buy their wheat and flour from 
Ontario. 

Both in Ontario and in the Maritime Provinces Popular 
the new duties provoked much popular dis- l'*'^*^*^ 
satisfaction, especially in the Maritime Provinces, tariff 
where a protectionist tariff was regarded as a 
breach of the compact at Confederation. At 
this time Ontario was the only province, east of 
the Rocky Mountains, in which the protectionist 
movement, begun in 1857-1858, had made any 
appreciable headway. Even in Ontario it was 
a movement that in 1870-1871 had secured sup- 
port only in a few manufacturing centers. 

There was so much agitation in Ontario against 

[433] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Abandon- the coal duty, and so much agitation in Nova 
"*°* Scotia and New Brunswick against the duties 
National on wheat and flour, that in 1871 Macdonald was 
oMSTO forced to abandon the National Pohcy of 1870; 
and it was 1879 before the Dominion was com- 
mitted to a high protectionist tariff; and 1883 
before a bounty system for the encouragement 
of the iron and steel industry was adopted. 
Re- A Conservative government was responsible 

mMit"**^' ^°^ ^^^ unsuccessful attempt of 1 870-1 871 to 
of establish the National Policy. The Conservatives 

National ^gj-e also responsible for the system finally 
in 1879 estabhshed in 1879. From 1878 to 1896 the 
Liberals were in opposition at Ottawa, During 
these eighteen years they continuously denounced 
the tariff policy of the Conservatives, and from 
1883 to 1896 they were equally vigorous and 
persistent in their denunciation of the payment of 
bounties for the encouragement of the iron and 
steel industries.^ 
Liberals In 1 897 the Liberals, who were in power at 
accept Ottawa from 1896 to 191 1, adopted both the 

National ^ t • r i V^ 

PoUcy tariff and bounty policies of the Conservatives. 

They greatly extended the bounty system. 

They increased many of the protective duties; 
British ^jjj -j^ tariff policy they made one innovation 
entiai of fat-reaching political importance. They estab- 
*^^^ lished a preferential tariff for imports from the 

United Kingdom; forged another link of empire; 

1 Cf. Edward Porritt, " Iron and Steel Bounties in Canada," 
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. xxii, No. 2 (1907), 194-195. 

[434] 



and 
establish 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 

impelled Great Britain in 1897 to change a long- 
existing policy in regard to commercial treaties; 
and incidentally provoked a tariff war between 
the Dominion and the German Empire ^hat lasted 
from 1903 to 19 10. 



11. The British Preferential Tariffs of iSgy 
and igoy 

The reductions in the tariff in favor of imports 
from the United Kingdom were made gradually 
in the three years from 1897 to 1900. The original 
plan was that from July, 1900, these imports 
should be chargeable only with two-thirds of the 
duties imposed on imports from the United States 
and other non-British countries. 

From July, 1900, to June, 1904, all imports 
from the United Kingdom were admitted oa these 
favorable terms. But Canadian manufacturers, 
through their national association, loudly pro- 
tested against this new competition from British 
manufacturers; and in 1904 and 1907 — particu- 
larly in 1907, when there was a general revision 
of the tariff, and many increases in duties — the 
preference was curtailed, and the tariff made 
more protective against British imports. 

At the revision in 1907 the principle of a uniform 
reduction of one third in favor of British imports 
was abandoned. The government then adopted 
the plan of a tariff in three divisions — a plan 
that will be easily understood from the accom- 

[435] 



Reduc- 
tions In 
duties 
on 

Imports 
from 
United 
E^lngdom 



HostlUty 
of 

Canadian 
manu- 
facturers 
— pref- 
erence 
curtailed 



TarlflE 
In three 
divi- 
sions 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

SCHEDULE A 



Britiah Inter- 

Preferential mediate- General 
TariH, Tariff. Tariff. 



403 

403a 



404 
405 



406 
407 



408 



409 

410 
411 
412 



413 

414 

415 
416 
417 
418 



Wire, crucible cast steel, valued at not less 
than six cents per pound Free. 

Steel wire valued at not less than two and 
three-quarter cents per pound when 
imported by manufacturers of rope for 
use exclusively in the manufacture of 
rope; and also wire rope for use exclu- 
sively for rigging of ships and vessels — 
under regulations by the Minister of 
Customs Free. 

See Tariff Amendment, June 12, 1914. 

Buckthorn strip fencing, woven wire fenc- 
ing, atid wire fencing of iron or steel, 
n.o.p., not to include woven wire or 
netting made from wire smaller than 
number fourteen gauge nor to include 
fencing of wire larger than number nine 
gauge 10 p.c. 

Wire of all metals and kinds, n.o.p 15 p.c. 

Wire, single or several, covered with 
cotton, linen, silk, rubber or other 
material, including cable so covered 20 p.c. 

Wire rope, stranded or twisted wire, 
clothes lines, picture and other twisted 
wire and wire cable, n.o.p 17J p.c. 

Wire cloth or woven wire, and wire netting, 
of iron or steel 20 p.c. 

See Tariff Amendment, June 12, 1914. 

See Tariff Amendment, June 12, 1914. 

Iron or steel nuts, washers, rivets, and 
bolts, with or without threads; nut, bolt 
and hinge blanks; and T and strap hinges 

of all kinds, n.o.p per 

one hundred pounds 75 cents . 
and 10 p.c. 

Screws, commonly called "wood screws," 
of iron or steel, brass or other metal, 
including lag or coach screws, plated or 
not, and machine or other screws, n.o.p. 22^ p.c. 

Iron or steel cut nails and spikes (ordinary 

builders') ; and railroad spikes per 

one hundred pounds . 30 cents . 

Composition nails and spikes and sheathing 
nails 10 p.c. 

Wire nails of all kinds, n.o.p per 

one hundred pounds . 40 cents . 

Nails, brads, spikes and tacks of all kinds, 
n.o.p 20 p.c. 

Wire cloth, or woven wire of brass or 
copper 17 J p.c. 



5 p.c. 5 p.c. 



Free. 



12i p.c. 
17i p.c. 



Free^ 



15 p.c. 
20 p.c. 



27i p.c. 30 p.c. 



22i p.c 
27J p.c. 



75 cents 
20 p.c. 



25 p.c. 
30 p.c. 



75 cents. 
25 p.c. 



30 p.c. 35- p.c. 



45 cents. 


50 cents 


12J p.c. 


15 p.c. 


55 cents. 


60 cents. 


30 p.c. 


35 p.c. 


22i p.c. 


25 p.c. 



[436] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 



panying facsimile of a page from the Dominion 
tariff as it stood before the war.^ 

Under the tariff as enacted in 1907 there are 
(i) the British preferential tariff; (2) an inter- 
mediate tariff for countries that make concessions 
in their tariffs for imports from the Dominion; and 
(3) a general tariff, applicable to all countries that 
in their tariffs make no concessions to Canada. 

No general principle was followed in 1907 in 
determining rates in the British preferential 
tariff. Consideration was given to the opposi- 
tion of Canadian manufacturers of competing 
goods, who demanded adequate protection against 
all comers, British or non-British. While the 
tariff on British imports was usually fixed at 
rates below the rates in the intermediate tariff, 
much care was exercised to make it certain that 
in the British preferential tariff there should be 
adequate protection for all Canadian manufac- 
turing interests — a procedure that necessitated 
many curtailments of the preference of 1897-1907. 

From 1897 to 1907 the preferential tariff 
stimulated trade between the United Kingdom 
and Canada. Particularly was this the case as 
regards woolens and other textiles, some products 



Protec- 
tion 
inaU 
three 
tariffs 
for 

Canadian 
manu- 
facturers 



Stimu- 
lation of 
British 
trade 



^ The tariff act of 1915 added seven and a half per cent to 
the duties of the intermediate and general tariffs; five per cent 
to the duties of the preference division; and imposed a duty 
of seven and a half per cent on many imports, mostly raw 
materials or partly finished materials, that were formerly 
on the free list. 

[ 437 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

of the secondary stages of the iron and steel and 
metal industries, and glass, earthenware, and 
furniture. 
Propa- It was this increase in trade between the 

ganda United Kingdom and Canada, and the efforts of 
con- manufacturers in England and Scotland to avail 

cessions themselves of the lower duties, that impelled 
British Canadian manufacturers to protest. They waged 
imports ^ continuous propaganda against the British 
preference at the meetings of their association 
and in their newspaper organs. They protested 
to parliament in 1904 and 1905;' and in the 
winter of 1 905-1 906 scores of individual manu- 
facturers appeared before the tariff commission 
to demand more protection against competition 
from Great Britain than was afforded under the 
tariff of 1897. 

Several of them characterized British competi- 
tion as foreign competition, and they all declared 
that protection against British manufacturers 
was as essential to the success and prosperity of 
Canadian industries as protection against the 
manufacturers of the United States. 
Curtaiie The effect of the revised and much curtailed 
prefer- preferential tariff in encouraging exports to 
tariff in Canada from the United Kingdom in the years 
oper- from 1907 to 1914 was less obvious than the 
effect of the tariff of 1897. There was some 
increase in the seven years before the war. But 
it was an increase which, when measured in 
customs-house valuations, afforded little ground 
C438] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 

for jubilation in manufacturing communities in 
the United Kingdom, especially in view of the 
widespread enthusiasm with which the original 
preferential tariff was received in Great Britain/ 
the enormous increase in emigration from Great 
Britain to Canada in the twelve years that 
preceded the war, the widespread prosperity in 
the Dominion from 1904 to 191 2, and the great 
increase in the price of manufactured goods in 
the period from 1900 to 191 4. 

III. The Political Effect in Canada of the 
Preferential Tariff 

In the seventeen years from 1897 to the be- Attitude 
ginning of the war, the political effect of the ^onser- 
preferential tariff, as framed in 1897, and revised vative 
in 1907, was much more important than the J'^l^^g 
economic effect. In Canada two political de- prefer- 
velopments followed the enactment of the ^°'^® 
preference. 

From 1897 to 191 1 the preference was de- 
nounced by the Conservatives, who in these 
years were in opposition at Ottawa. The objec- 
tions of the Conservatives were (i) that Canadian 
manufacturers must have protection against all 
comers; and (2) that Great Britain had given 
Canada no tariff concessions in return for the 
concessions in the Dominion tariff. 

1 Cf. Heckles Willson, "Life of Lord Strathcona and Mount 
Royal," II, 336. 

[439] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA ., 

Demand As the United Kingdom was on a free-trade 
*uid basis from 1846 to the beginning of the war, it 

pro quo was not possible for any government at Whitehall 
to offer Canada an equivalent for the preference, 
without effecting a revolution in the British 
fiscal system. Many increases in the tariff were 
made at Ottawa after the Conservatives were 
returned to power at the general election in 191 1. 
These increases, made in the years from 191 2 to 
1914, were intended to afford more protection to 
Canadian manufacturers, or to add to the pro- 
tection of fruit growers in British Columbia, 
against competition from the United States. 
Conserv- As soon as the Conservatives were in office, how- 
ative ever, they ceased to condemn the British prefer- 
ment ence; and from 191 1 to the outbreak of the war 
accepts they made no effort to secure from the govern- 
prefer- mcut at Whitehall any quid pro quo for the 
ence lower duties first established for imports from 

the United Kingdom by the preferential tariff of 
1897. They accepted the policy of the Liberals 
as regards the preference, just as the Liberals in 
1897 had accepted the National Policy of the 
Conservatives of the preceding eight years. 
Attitude Advocates of free trade in Canada welcomed 
°' the preferential tariff of 1897, and protested 

interests against the curtailments made in it in 1904 and 
towards 1907. The Only consumers in Canada who are 
entiai organized and articulate as such are the grain 
**^ growers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta 
and the farmers of Ontario. From 1905 onwards 
[440] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 



these organizations continuously agitated for 
lower duties in the British preferential tariff. 
As the leaders of both the Liberal and Conserva- 
tive parties at Ottawa as continuously ignored 
the agitation, the grain growers and farmers in 
the winter of 1915-1916 launched an independent 
movement in Dominion politics. 

The purpose of the movement — the most 
considerable of all attempts in Canada from 1867 
to 1918 to create a party independent of the 
Conservative and Liberal parties — was to secure 
direct representation of grain growers and farmers 
in the house of commons. In the national 
political platform adopted by the grain growers' 
associations, at their provincial conventions in 
the winter of 1916-1917, there was a demand for 
an extension of the British preference as a means 
of strengthening the bonds between Canada and 
Great Britain, and also of bringing about a 
reduction in the cost of living in Canada.^ 

The innovation in tariff legislation at Ottawa 
in 1897 — an innovation in which Canada once 
more led the oversea dominions — thus resulted 
in raising a new issue in Dominion politics; and 
the persistence with which the grain growers 
agitated for an extension of the preferential 
tariff widened the political gulf between the 
manufacturing interests of Ontario, Quebec, 
Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the 



1 Cf. "A National Political 
Guide, December 13, 1916. 



Platform," Grain Growers' 



[441] 



Grain 

growers 
organize 
inde- 
pendent 
move- 
ment 
In 

Dominion 
politics 



Division 
between 
agrarian 
and 
manu- 
facturing 
interests 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

agrarian interests of Ontario, and of the thousand- 
mile stretch of country that Hes between the 
Lake of the Woods and the Rocky Mountains. 

IV. The Tariff War of igoj-igio with 
Germany 

Ger- For the Empire at large the preferential tariff 

'i^ta °^ ^^97 ^^^ quite far-reaching consequences, 
1897 some of which developed out of the aggressive 

attitude of Germany towards the new trade 
relations of Canada with Great Britain. Ger- 
many claimed that as an empire with a treaty of 
commerce with Great Britain, according it favored- 
nation treatment, it was entitled to send its 
exports to Canada on the same terms as were 
conceded under the preferential tariff to imports 
from Great Britain. 
Great In order to leave Canada, and other oversea 

Britain possessions with responsible government, free to 
nounces make their own commercial arrangements with 
*^°™" one another, and with non-British countries, 

mercial 

treaties Great Britain in July, 1897, — only three months 
after the new tariff had been enacted at Ottawa 
— denounced her commercial treaties with Ger- 
many, Belgium, Italy, and nearly a dozen other 
powers in Europe, Asia, and South America. 
Rounding The action of Great Britain in regard to these 
com- treaties, all of them, like that with Germany, of 
mercial long Standing, and of much value to manufacturers 
^ree om ^^j exporters in the United Kingdom, completed 
dominions the fiscal and commercial freedom of Canada. 
[442] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 



It also completed the fiscal and commercial 
freedom of the Commonwealth of Australia, the 
Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South 
Africa, and the Dominion of Newfoundland; for 
heretofore, while these oversea dominions had no 
part in the negotiation of commercial treaties 
made by Great Britain, they had all, like Canada, 
been bound by British commercial treaties made 
before 1872. This was the year when Great 
Britain conceded to the colonies with responsible 
government the option of inclusion in new treaties. 

Until July, 1898, imports from Germany into 
Canada were admitted under the preferential 
tariflF. Thereafter imports from Germany paid 
the duties imposed by the general tariff of 1897 
— the same duties as were paid on imports 
from the United States. Germany resented this 
treatment. 

Belgium agreed to a 
Canada and the other 
action. Germany flatly 
with Great Britain to replace the treaty of 1865- 
1898. Her position was that what the oversea 
dominions conceded to Great Britain must also 
be conceded to the German Empire. 

What Lansdowne, who was secretary for 
foreign affairs in the Salisbury and Balfour 
governments of 1 895-1 906, described as a serious 
position, developed out of Germany's opposition 
to the new commercial relations between Great 
Britain and the dominions. 

[443] 



new treaty which left 
dominions freedom of 
refused a new treaty 



Imports 
from 
Germany- 
pay 

duties of 
general 
tariff 



Germany 
attempts 
to 
domineer 



Reprisals 
threat- 
ened by 
Germany 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Lans- 
downe's 
state- 
ment 
in the 
house of 
lords 



Germany 

and 

Great 

Britain's 

"naughty 

little 

colonies" 



Tariff 
war of 
1903- 
1910 



"It is not merely that we find Canada liable 
to be made to suffer in consequence of the differen- 
tial treatment which the Canadian government 
had afforded to us," Lansdowne told the house 
of lords, on June 29, 1903, "but it was actually 
adumbrated in an official document, that, if 
other colonies acted in the same manner as Can- 
ada, the result might be that we, the mother 
country, would find ourselves deprived of most- 
favored-nation treatment." 

"Thus," wrote English commentators on the 
action of Germany, after the government at 
Whitehall, at the instance of Canada, had ended 
the British-German treaty of commerce of 1865, 
" Germany first demanded to share in the Ca- 
nadian preference. And when that attempted 
intrusion into the domestic life of the British 
Empire was forbidden, we had the threat that 
England would be punished in her trade with 
Germany, if she did not put these naughty little 
colonies in their place." ^ 

The upshot of Germany's procedure was that 
for the first time since Great Britain had adopted 
free trade in 1846, one dominion of the British 
Empire was engaged from 1903 to 1910 in a 
tariff war, Germany was the aggressor. Until 
July, 1898, Canadian exports to Germany were 
admitted under the German minimum tariff. As 
soon as the treaty of 1865 had expired, and ex- 
ports from Germany to Canada were consequently 

1 P. and A. Hurd, "The New Empire Partnership," 228. 

[444] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 



no longer admitted on the same favorable terms as 
exports from the United Kingdom, Germany put 
her maximum tariff into force against Canada. 

"We did not," said Fielding, minister of 
finance at Ottawa, "deny to Germany favored- 
nation treatment. We were willing to give her 
every consideration that we gave to any foreign 
government. But she took offense because we 
would not treat her as we did the United 
Kingdom." ^ 

The Dominion was slow to retaliate. The 
government at Ottawa conceived that there was 
some misunderstanding on the part of Germany. 
By diplomatic correspondence, and also through 
the German consulate at Montreal, efforts were 
made to assure Berlin that Canada was giving to 
Germany everything that it gave to any foreign 
country; that it was conceding to Germany what 
it conceded to France, although France, with 
which Canada had a treaty of commerce since 
1893, gave valuable concessions in return, and 
Germany conceded nothing. 

All that Canada asked was that her exports to 
Germany should again come under the minimum 
tariff. This Germany refused. Her maximum 
tariff was put into force against Canada in the 
autumn of 1898; but it was October, 1903, before 
Canada retaliated. Then, by act of parliament, 
a surtax of one third of the duties of the general 
tariff was imposed on imports from Germany. 
^ H. C. Debates, December 14, 1907. 

[ 445 ] 



Canada's 
offer to 
Germany 



Efforts 

at 

Ottawa 

to avoid 

tariff 

war 



Stirtax 
on 

German 
Imports 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Peace 
without 
victory — 
for 
Germany 



The result of the surtax was that on many of 
the imports from Germany duties in the years 
from 1903 to 1910 ranged as high as forty per 
cent, the highest tariff duties ever in force in 
Canada, until the war tariff of 1915 was enacted. 
There was at once a great reduction in Germany's 
export trade to Canada. 

Germany slowly realized that only loss of 
trade was resulting from persistence in the tariff 
war; and in February, 1910, on overtures from 
Berlin, the tariff war was ended in a peace without 
victory for Germany.^ 



Germany 
no 
tariff 
advan- 
tages 
over 
United 
States 



V. The United States and the British 
Preferential Tariffs 

Notwithstanding the treaty of commerce be- 
tween Great Britain and Germany of 1 865-1 898 
— a treaty in which there was a clause ^ which 
provided that goods exported from Germany 
to Canada should not be chargeable with higher 
duties than were imposed on goods exported 
from the United Kingdom to Canada — only 
from April, 1897, to July, 1898, in the thirty- 
three years from 1865 to 1897 had Germany any 
advantage over the United States in the export 
trade to Canada. 

^ Cf. Fielding's Speech, "House of Commons Debates," 
February 16, 1910. 

2 "A clause very obnoxious to the people, not only of 
Canada, but of the colonies generally." — Fielding, H. C. 
Debates, April 16, 1903. 
[446] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 



The United States enjoyed special advantages 
from 1854 to 1866, the years of the Elgin-Marcy 
treaty; and since 1883 France has continuously en- 
joyed a measure of special treatment in Canadian 
tariffs, owing to the existence of commercial treaties 
between the Dominion and the French Republic. 

With these exceptions, until 1897 all countries, 
British and non-British, exported goods to 
Canada on the same terms. There were no 
tariff concessions in Canada to countries with 
favored-nation treaties with Great Britain, be- 
cause it was not until tariffs for the protection of 
Canadian industries had been in operation in the 
United Provinces from 1858 to 1867, and in the 
Dominion from 1867 to 1897, that any concession 
was made in Canadian tariffs to imports from the 
United Kingdom.^ 

No concession was asked by Canada from the 
United Kingdom when the original preferential 
tariff was framed. "England," said Fielding, 
when he announced the innovation of 1897 to 
the house of commons, "has dealt generously 
with us in the past. She has given us liberty to 
tax her wares, even when she admits ours free; 
and we have taxed them to an enormous degree." ^ 

Canada also asked nothing in return for the 
preference for British crown colonies in which 
there were tariffs for revenue only; and by 191 3 

^ Salt imported from the United Kingdom for the sea 
fisheries of Canada has always been on the free list. 
^ H. C. Debates, April 22, 1897. 

C447] 



Countries 
that had 
advan- 
tages 



Other- 
wise all 
countries 
on same 
footing 



No 

conces- 
sion 
in 

return 
for 

British 
prefer- 
ence 



Canada 
and 
crown 
colonies 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

twenty-five crown colonies were participating 
in the concessions of the British preference of 
1907.^ The dominions with protective tariffs 
had to make reciprocal concessions before they 
could share in the preferential rates conceded to 
the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, 
and the Union of South Africa, all made terms 
with Canada. 
Recipro- With the nine West Indian colonies ^ Canada, 
^^g in 1913, entered into an elaborate and liberal 
with agreement for reciprocal trade. The result of 

Indies ^^^ these various arrangements was that in the 
year preceding the war, the United Kingdom, 
four dominions, and thirty-four crown colonies 
were all linked together by the far-reaching 
innovation in tariff making at Ottawa in 1897, 
which originated with the Liberal government of 
1896-1911. 
Canada There is no country in the world that advertises 

^l^_ more systematically or on a more lavish scale 
tiser than Canada. It expended nearly fifteen million 

dollars in the years from 1897 to 1914, in ad- 
vertising itself in the United Kingdom, the 
United States, and the countries of continental 
Europe — in making known the opportunities that 
were awaiting immigrants into the Dominion. 
The preferential tariff of 1897 advertised 

^ Cf. Customs Tariff, 1907, Ottawa, 1914, Appendix 18, 
212. 

2 Trinidad, British Guiana, Barbados, St. Lucia, St. 
Vincent, Antigua, St. Kitts, Dominica, and Montserrat. 

[448] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 



Canada all over the English-speaking world 
better than all its immigration propaganda. It 
enormously supplemented the lavish outlay on 
printer's ink of the Dominion government. 
Magna Charta, for seven centuries England's 
great standing advertisement, was not promul- 
gated in an act of parliament. With Magna 
Charta outside of the category of acts of parlia- 
ment, it can be said of the preferential tariff act 
of 1897 that it obtained for Canada more free 
and appreciative advertising — oral as well as 
printed — than any other country ever obtained 
by means of any act ever passed by its legislature, 
parliament, or congress. 

Austria and Italy demurred to Great Britain's 
policy of 1 897- 1 898 of freeing the Dominions from 
obligations under the old treaties of commerce. 
But Germany, with whom both Austria and 
Italy were then in alliance, was the only country 
that persistently and strenuously objected to the 
restriction by the government at Ottawa of 
the preferential tariff to the United Kingdom and 
the colonies of the British Empire. 

The United States, France, Belgium, Sweden, 
Norway, Denmark, Colombia, Mexico, and Costa 
Rica all accepted the new status of the British 
dominions. Italy and Austria created diplomatic 
obstacles to the new fiscal and commercial free- 
dom of Canada and the other dominions, obstacles 
which had not been removed up to the time war 
began in August, 1914. 

[449] 



Its 

greatest 
adver- 
tisement 
up to 
the war 



Austria 

and 

Italy 

demur 

to 

Great 

Britain's 

treaty 

policy 

of 1898 



Issues 

with the 

countries 

tmsettled 

when 

war 

began 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Talked 
German 
and 

talked it 
loudly 



No 

objection 
to prefer- 
ential 
tariff by 
United 
States 

"An 
arrange- 
ment 
within 
the 
family" 



No 
sug- 
gestion 
of 

retali- 
ation 



But Germany was the only country that 
embarked on a tariff war with Canada, or threat- 
ened commercial reprisals against the United 
Kingdom. Germany talked German, and talked 
it loudly. It was of no avail. The tariff war 
with Canada would have gone on indefinitely if 
Germany had not capitulated in 1910. 

Great Britain, when she denounced her com- 
mercial treaties in 1897, had no commercial 
treaty with the United States — at any rate no 
commercial treaty quite comparable with the 
British-German treaty of 1 865-1 898. 

At Washington, however, there were no objec- 
tions to the preferential tariff. From the time 
of its enactment it was regarded as a purely 
domestic concern of the British Empire. Sereno 
E. Payne, chairman of the committee of ways 
and means of the house of representatives, 
described it, in 1909, as "an arrangement within 
the family, to which no exception could be 
taken." Payne was quite as protectionist as 
McKinley or Dingley, or any other of his Re- 
publican predecessors in the chairmanship of 
the committee at Washington in which all tariff 
bills originate. 

The Dingley bill of 1897 was before congress 
when parliament at Ottawa enacted the first 
preferential tariff. No retaliation was suggested 
at that revision of the United States tariff; and 
there was no suggestion of retaliation at the 
tariff revisions at Washington in 1909 or 1913. 

[450] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 

For the United Kingdom the preferential tariff Far- 
of 1897 had four or five obvious results. It did ^g^^^.^ ^ 
more than forge a new link of empire. It ended of 
the apprehensions, born of the successful revolt ^^^' 
of the American colonies of 1 776-1 783, that the tarifif 
British dominions with responsible government ° ^ ^"^ 
would sooner or later assert their independence. 

It impelled the British government to create a New 
new diplomatic status — a world-standing of ^^ 
importance — for Canada, New Zealand, Aus- status 
tralia. South Africa, and Newfoundland. It °' , 

' ' domln- 

stimulated trade between the United Kingdom ions 
and Canada, and created a new, widespread, and 
continuous popular interest in the Dominion, an 
interest that by 1905 had helped to turn the tide 
of immigration from England and Scotland from 
the United States to Canada.^ 

Another of these results of the original prefer- other 
ential tariff was easier trade relations between f°^^^' 

ions 

the United Kingdom and the other dominions, follow 
New Zealand followed the example of Canada in ^^*«^p^® 
1903; the Union of South Africa in 1906; and Canada 
the Commonwealth of Australia in 1907. New- 
foundland is the only dominion which has made 
no tariff concession to the United Kingdom. Its 
isolated position in regard to the preference is due 
to the fact that its tariff is exclusively for revenue. 
From 1903 to the beginning of the war, and in 
particular from 1903 to 1907, the preferential 

^ Cf. Johnson, "A History of Emigration from the United 
Kingdom to North America," 1763-1912, 347. 

[451 3 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

tariff was a factor in the domestic politics of the 
United Kingdom. In 1903 Chamberlain, who had 
been secretary of state for the colonies since 1895, 
resigned that ofl5.ce to devote himself to a propa- 
ganda for tariff protection to agriculture and to the 
industries of the United Kingdom, with preferences 
for imports from the dominions and crown colonies.^ 

In the earlier stages of the propaganda in 
England and Scotland it was assumed that the 
manufacturers of Canada, and of the other 
dominions, would agree to a reduction of the 
protection afforded them in the tariffs of the 
dominions in order to secure for Canadian grain 
growers and farmers and for farmers and wool 
growers in the other dominions, a preference in 
the markets of Great Britain. It was a mistaken 
assumption; and there was a prompt and general 
shattering of it in 1904, when Canadian manu- 
facturers of woolens forced the Dominion govern- 
ment to put the duties on British woolens back 
nearly to the level of 1 884-1 897. 

After the revision of the tariff at Ottawa in 
the winter of 1906-1907 — the revision at which 
the preferential tariff was so greatly curtailed — • 
the assumption that Canadian manufacturers 
would agree to anything less than an adequate 
protection against imports from the United 
Kingdom had to be abandoned by British pro- 
tectionists of the Chamberlain school. 

Canadian manufacturers never disguised their 

* Cf. A. Mackintosh, "Joseph Chamberlain," 264-269. 

[ 452 ] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 



at 
Ottawa 
that 

must be 
obeyed 



hostility to the British preference. In season Making 
and out of season from 1897 to the beginning of ^ ^°^ 
the war, the Canadian Manufacturers' Associa- delusion 
tion — the most poHtically powerful protec- 
tionist organization in the British Empire ^ — ■ 
assailed the preference, and strove to rid people 
of the United Kingdom of "the delusion that 
access to the Canadian market is the natural 
right of the British manufacturers, regardless of 
the will of the country." ^ 

At the revision of 1907 it was made obvious Behests 
that the government at Ottawa must obey the 
behests of the Canadian Manufacturers' Associa- 
tion; and after the whittling down of the prefer- 
ence in 1904 and 1907, the British preferential 
tariff ceased to be a factor in the agitation in 
Great Britain for a return to a protectionist sys- 
tem. The agitation continued until the eve of 
the war. But in the later years the protectionists 
no longer advanced the claim of 1 903-1 907 that 
a larger market could be secured in Canada for 
British manufactures through a British protec- 
tionist tariff in which there would be preferences 
for the farm products and lumber of the Dominion. 

^ "The Canadian Manufacturers' Association is like a 
young giant ignorant of its own power. By the exercise of 
its power, it could, if it chose, bring several millions of 
people to the verge of starvation and paralyze the industry 
of the whole Dominion." — Speech of G. M. Murray, secre- 
tary of the association, Winnipeg, February 9, 1910. 

^ Industrial Canada, the organ of the Canadian Manu- 
facturers' Association, Toronto, October, 1908. 

[453] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Abortive 
reciproc- 
ity 

treaty 
of 1874 



Treaty 
rejected 
by 

senate 
at 

Washing- 
ton 



American 
objec- 
tions 
to 



VI. The Movement for Reciprocity with 
the United States 

One of the objects of the National Policy, to 
which Macdonald and the Conservatives com- 
mitted the Dominion in 1879, was to secure 
reciprocity with the United States. There was 
an offer of reciprocity in the tariff of 1870; and 
in 1874 the government at Ottawa made the 
first open and direct overtures to Washington, 
after Confederation, for another treaty. 

Brown, of Ontario, was the Canadian com- 
missioner. He was delegated by the Liberal 
government of 1 873-1 878, appointed a joint 
plenipotentiary by the government at Whitehall, 
and worked in association with Thornton, the 
British minister at Washington. After many 
conferences between Thornton and Brown, and 
Hamilton Fish, secretary of state in Grant's 
second administration, a draft treaty was agreed 
upon. It was approved at Whitehall. But the 
senate at Washington refused to ratify it; and 
today the chief interest attaching to it lies in the i 
free list. This shows how far the government 
at Ottawa, with the approval of a Conservative 
government at Whitehall, was prepared to go in 
meeting one of the objections at Washington to 
the old reciprocity treaty of 1 854-1 866. 

After the Elgin-Marcy treaty had been in 
operation for four or five years, one of several 
objections raised against it at Washington was 

[454] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 



that its spirit had not been observed in Canada 
— that the United Provinces in 1858-1859 had 
adopted protective tariffs with a view to the 
exclusion of manufactures from the United States. 

Between 1866 and 1874 it was reaHzed at 
Ottawa that there had been a basis for this 
objection at Washington. It was also realized 
by the Liberal administration of 1 873-1 878 that 
Canada could not hope for another reciprocity- 
treaty conceding the free admission of fish, coal, 
lumber, and farm products into the United States 
unless concessions were made in Canadian tariffs 
for American manufactures. 

Canada in 1874 was prepared to make generous 
concessions, concessions of much value to Ameri- 
can manufacturers; for if the treaty had been 
ratified by the senate at Washington, Canada 
would have admitted, duty free, seventy-seven 
classes of American manufactures. Among these 
were agricultural implements, cotton goods, 
tweeds, and boots and shoes. It was the best 
offer ever made by Canada to any country, 
British or non-British. 

It was an offer, which, if it had been accepted 
by the senate, would have established conditions 
of trade between Canada and the United States 
of much more value to the manufacturers of the 
United States than the preferential tariff of 1897- 
1907 was to the manufacturers of the United 
Kingdom. It was of much value to American 
trade because it was for a certain definite period, 

[455] 



reciproc- 
ity 

treaty of 
1854- 
1866 

Canadian 
tariff 
con- 
cessions 
to 

American 
manu- 
facturers 



Generous 
con- 
cessions 
offered 
in 1874 



An offer 
exclu- 
sively 
to the 
United 
States 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Over- 
tures for 
reciproc- 
ity 



All offers 
of less 
value 
than 
offer 
of 1S71 



and because the manufactures to be admitted 
duty free under the proposed treaty were articles 
in general use in the Dominion, and all similar to 
those in common use in the United States. It 
was, moreover, an ofFer exclusively to the United 
States; for it was no part of the plan of the 
Mackenzie government that similar tariff con- 
cessions should be made in favor of British 
manufacturers. 

At least seven overtures for reciprocity were 
made by Canada in the thirty-three years from 
the denunciation of the Elgin-Marcy treaty to 
1 898-1 899, when a high joint commission, ap- 
pointed as a result of overtures made by the 
Laurier government of 1896-1911, failed to reach 
an agreement on reciprocity and other questions 
which had been submitted to it. Five of the 
overtures were made direct to Washington. 
Two of them — those of 1870 and 1879 — ■ 
were embodied in tariff acts of the Dominion 
parliament. 

The offer made in the tariff of 1879 — an offer 
that remained on the statute book of the Domin- 
ion until 1894^ — and all the other offers made 
after 1 879, were of much less value to the United 
States than the offer embodied in the rejected 
treaty of 1874. It was well known at Ottawa 
that the government at Washington would 
entertain no proposals for reciprocity that did 
not include free trade in some manufactured 
^ Cf. Canada Customs Tariff, 1894, sections 7 to 13. 

[456] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 

goods as well as in coal, lumber, fish, and farm 
products. But It was not practicable, either 
for the Conservative governments of 1 878-1 896 
or the Liberal governments of 1896-1911, to renew 
the offer of 1874, with its long list of American 
manufactures to be admitted into the Dominion 
duty free. 

The Conservatives framed and enacted the impossi- 
National Policy in 1879. The Liberals adopted ^f^^ 
and greatly extended It in 1 897-1 907; and after con- 
high tariffs and bounties from the Dominion ^^^^^ 
treasury had been established for the upbuilding as 
of Canadian Industries, Canadian manufacturers ^^°J' 
were promptly on hand at Ottawa to oppose any as those 
reciprocity agreement that would In any degree ° ^^^* 
lower the tariff barriers against competition 
from the United States. 

In the earlier years of the reciprocity move- interests 
ment — 1846 to 1879 — the demand for freer Canada 
trade relations with the United States was that 
strongest with the coal operators of Nova Scotia fe^f^^^c- 
and British Columbia, and with the lumbermen ity 
and farmers of Ontario, Quebec, and the Mari- 
time Provinces. There were no exports of grain 
from what are now the prairie provinces until 
after the Canadian Pacific Railway connected 
Winnipeg with Montreal in 1883; and the 
organized grain growers did not come Into the 
reciprocity movement until 1905. 

The movement for reciprocity in Canada 
easily survived the rebuff at Washington in 

C457] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Attempts 

at 

Ottawa 

to 

con- 

cUiate 

these 

interests 



PoUtl- 
clans 
humor 
farmers 
and 

lumber- 
men 



1874; and it was to conciliate the interests that 
were behind it, and to attract support in the 
electorate for the National Policy, that Mac- 
donald embodied the offer of reciprocity in fish, 
coal, lumber, and farm products in the tariff act 
of 1879. But after the tariff of 1879 had been 
in operation a few years, the coal operators of 
Nova Scotia, long an influential factor in Domin- 
ion politics, preferred the duties in the tariff 
which protected them against American competi- 
tion to the free entry of their coal into the United 
States that they had enjoyed under the reciproc- 
ity treaty of 1854-1866.^ Moreover, as manu- 
facturing industries were developed and extended 
in Canada, it became increasingly difficult for 
governments at Ottawa to make proposals of 
reciprocal trade that would be acceptable at 
Washington. 

Farmers, fishermen, and lumbermen persisted ; 
in their demand for reciprocity. These interests 
had to be humored at election times. Pledges 
had to be made to them; and the last two over- 
tures from Ottawa to Washington — those of 
1892 and 1898 — were not much more than 
perfunctory fulfillments of pledges given at 
the general elections of 1891 and 1896. Neither 
the Conservative government in 1892, nor the 
Liberal government in 1898, as the general elec- 
tion of 191 1 subsequently demonstrated, was in 

1 Cf. Saunders, "Life and Letters of Sir Charles Tupper," 
II, 97. 
[458] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 



a position to barter an iota of the tariff protection 
of Canadian manufacturers to secure free entry 
into the United States of coal, lumber and farm 
products from Canada. 

The seventh attempt since 1866 to secure a 
reciprocity agreement broke down during the 
sessions of an international commission which 
had convened first at Quebec and later on at 
Washington. The Liberal government, at whose 
instance the commission had been appointed, 
then proclaimed that henceforth there would 
be no more pilgrimages to Washington, that the 
next overtures for reciprocity must come from 
the government of the United States. 

In the sixty-four years from the peace of Ver- 
sailles to 1847, and particularly in the period from 
the treaty of Ghent of 18 14, to 1847, the United 
States made many overtures to Great Britain — 
some of them partially successful — for admission 
to the West India trade, and to the trade of the 
old British North American provinces. But in 
the fifty years from 1848 to 1898 all overtures 
for reciprocity in navigation and trade were 
made, either by the British North American 
provinces, or the Dominion of Canada, or by the 
British government on behalf of Canada. 

In this half century — 1 848-1 898 — no over- 
tures were made from Washington. The United 
States ceased to ask for reciprocity after Great 
Britain, without asking from any country any 
concessions for herself, or for any of her oversea 

[459] 



Failure 
of 

negotia- 
tions 
of 1898- 
1899 



Com- 
mercial 
con- 
cessions 
sought 
from 
Great 
Britain 



Washing- 
ton 

ceases 
to ask for 
con- 
cessions 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

possessions, had established herself on a free- 
trade basis in 1846, and in 1847 had also aban- 
doned her old navigation code. 

After the navigation of the St. Lawrence was 

conceded by Great Britain in 1854, the United 

States — with the exception of the restoration of 

the fishery privileges, enjoyed from 1783 to 181 2, 

and again from 1854 to 1866, and of reciprocity in 

wrecking on the Great Lakes — desired nothing 

in trade or navigation from Great Britain or 

Canada. 

Reciproc- It followed, therefore, that when the negotia- 

shei d tions of 1 898-1 899 broke down, there seemed as 

at little likelihood that Washington would ever ask 

Ottawa |-Qj. j-eciprocity as there was that congress would 

repeal the duties on all imports from Canada, 

without asking any tariff concessions from the 

Dominion for the United States. This attitude 

of Washington admirably suited the politicians 

and manufacturers of the Dominion. It shelved, 

and shelved indefinitely, an extremely awkward 

issue for both political parties. 

Develop- Reciprocity after 1899, so far as politicians at 

meats Ottawa were concerned, might have gone into 

revived the limbo of forgotten questions, but for two 

reciproc- developments that came in the years from 1905 

issue to 1910. The organized grain growers of the 

prairie provinces, and the farmers of Ontario, 

put new life into the old movement for reciprocity 

when the tariff commission made its tour of the 

Dominion In 1905-1906. In 1909 President 

[460] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 



to 
Canada 



Taft, disheartened by popular hostility to the 
Payne-Aldrich tariff, conceived that the high 
cost of living might be reduced if the United 
States could draw more freely on the products 
of Canada. 

Reciprocity, with some slight advantages for American 
American manufacturers, was the easiest way ^^^ ^ 
for a Republican administration to achieve this surprise 
end. To the surprise of the government at 
Ottawa, and to the people of the Dominion, and 
to the dismay of Canadian manufacturers, who 
had concluded, after the Liberal government in 
1897 adopted a protectionist policy, and reaffirmed 
that policy in 1904, and again in 1907, that they 
had heard the last of any lowering of the Canadian 
tariff wall that faces the United States, there 
were overtures from Washington for reciprocity, 
to be based, not as in 1854 on a treaty, but on 
concurrent legislation at Washington and Ottawa. 

The Ottawa government was willing to nego- 
tiate; and after conferences at Ottawa and 
Washington, extending from November 4, 1910, 
to January 21, 191 1, an agreement was reached. 
It was more inclusive than the Elgin-Marcy 
treaty, which did not cover any manufactured 
goods. It was not nearly as inclusive as the 
rejected treaty of 1874; for wood pulp, paper, 
brass rods, wire rods, fencing wire, coke, type- 
casting and type-setting machines, and cream 
separators were about the only manufactured 
goods that Ottawa would agree should be imported 

[461] 



Proposed 
agree- 
ment 
of 1910- 
1911 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



No 

depar- 
ture 
fronr 
policy 
Washing- 
ton 

adopted 
In 1866 



Rejection 
of 

reciproc- 
ity 
at 

general 
election 
of 1911 



duty free from the United States. Duties on 
farm equipment, on printers' equipment, and on 
railway and builders' and plumbers' supplies 
from the United States were, as a further con- 
cession, slightly reduced. 

The concessions made by Ottawa on manu- 
factured goods were, however, sufficient to en- 
able the government at Washington to proclaim 
that there had been no departure from the 
attitude adopted in 1866, when the government 
took the position that no reciprocity agreement 
would be considered which did not include 
manufactured goods as well as fish, farm products, 
lumber, and minerals. 

Legislation was enacted at Washington to 
bring the agreement into effect. At Ottawa, 
when the reciprocity bill was introduced, it was 
opposed by the manufacturers, the bankers, and 
the railway and transport interests. The Con- 
servatives, then in opposition, took their cue 
from these interests. They promptly and com- 
pletely abandoned their old arguments in favor 
of reciprocity, and so successfully filibustered 
against the bill in the house of commons that the 
Laurier government was compelled to advise 
the governor-general to dissolve parliament. 
After the most exciting and bitter electoral cam- 
paign in the history of the Dominion, the Laurier 
government and the reciprocity bill were defeated. 

The election of 191 1, which returned 133 Con- 
servatives to the house of commons, as compared 

[462] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 



With 86 Liberals,^ demonstrated to the world 
what had been known at Ottawa since 1879. 
No government that is committed to the National 
Policy, and that becomes dependent on the 
electoral, newspaper, and financial support of 
the manufacturers and the various interests 
allied with the manufacturers, can enter on any 
agreement for reciprocal trade with the United 
States if the agreement involves even the slightest 
scaling down of the duties that protect Canadian 
manufacturers from competition from the United 
States. 

The Laurier government of 1 896-191 1 knew 
this fact as well as any Conservative government 
from 1878 to 1916. But from 1905 to 1910 the 
organized grain growers were increasing rapidly 
in numbers, and were exercising a growing 
influence on politics in the prairie provinces. 

This fact, and a fact of much portent to the 
government, was brought home to Laurier and 
the Liberal party in the summer of 1910. Laurier, 
in July and August, made a political tour of the 
prairie provinces. He was received by the grain 
growers in a critical rather than an admiring 
mood, with an absence of reserve towards leaders 
in political life at Ottawa that was quite new in 
the history of the Dominion. Representatives 
of the grain growers' associations at half a score 
of places between Winnipeg and Calgary re- 

^ The popular vote of the Conservatives was 669,000; 
Liberals, 625,000. 

[463] 



Political 
power 
of 

Canadian 
manu- 
facturers 



Grain 

growers 

in 

Dominion 

politics 



A premier 
on tour 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Repudia- 
tion of 
pledges 
recalled 



A 

Dominion 
election 
In sight 



called to the premier the pledges that the Liberal 
party had given to the Dominion at the Ottawa 
convention of 1893. 

Laurier was reminded with much bluntness of 
utterance that the tariff pledges had been re- 
pudiated by the Liberal government in 1897 
and 1907. He was told that the grain growers 
were grieviously disappointed at this repudiation; 
and told with much emphasis that the grain 
growers' associations were intent on lower 
duties in the Dominion tariff — that lower 
duties were essential to the success of the grain 
growing business in the prairie provinces — and 
also informed that the grain growers were still 
intent on reciprocity with the United States.-' 

The grain growers were thus insistent in their 
demands for lower duties and for reciprocity; 
and during Laurier's political tour in 1910 they 
made it plain to the premier and to the Liberal 
party, that they were in politics to stay. The 
new political movement in the prairie provinces 
was all the more important because in 1910 
parliament at Ottawa was more than halfway 
through its statutory term of five years. 

The Laurier government accordingly took a 



^ Cf. Grain Grower s Guide, July 27, August 3, 10, and 17, 
1910; Globe, Toronto, July 23, 25, 28, and 30, and August 4 and 
5; Farmers' Tribune, Winnipeg, August 3; Weekly Phcenix, 
Saskatoon, August 3; Standard, Regina, August 4; Free Press, 
Winnipeg, September 7; and Sun, Toronto, August 10, 
September 28, and October 19, 1910. 

[464] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 



chance in the interest of a movement that the 
Liberal party had championed for thirty years 
before it went over to protection in 1897. With 
the manufacturers and bankers and the trans- 
port interests denouncing reciprocity — declaring 
that it would end the connection with Great 
Britain — the odds were against the govern- 
ment; and it encountered defeat in a cause that 
both Liberals and Conservatives had continu- 
ously advocated from 1846 to 1896. 



The 
govern- 
ment 
takes a 
chance 



Vn. Influence of the United States on the 
National Policy 

In no department of the political life of Canada increases 
was American influence more potent than in the *° ^^°~ 

. . tective 

origm and development of the National Policy, duties 
Canada was greatly influenced by the success ^^ 

. . . . . congress 

of manufacturing industries in the United States, 
by the refusal of the United States from 1866 to 
1909 to negotiate another reciprocity treaty on 
terms which Canada could meet, and by increases 
in the protective duties of American tariffs from 
1880 to 1897. 

Of these influences the rejection by the senate Rejection 
of the reciprocity treaty of 1874 was most power- 
ful in the formative period of the National Policy. 
Had the treaty been accepted it would have 
restored to the farmers and lumbermen of eastern 
Canada much of the prosperity of 1 854-1 866. 
With rural Canada enjoying prosperity in any 

[465] 



of 

reciproc- 
ity 

treaty 
of 1874 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

degree comparable with that of the period of the 
Elgin-Marcy treaty, it is inconceivable that 
Macdonald, at the general election of 1878, could 
have persuaded the electorate to sanction the 
National Policy, framed by a convention of 
manufacturers at Toronto in 1876, and endorsed 
and advocated by the Conservatives, then in 
opposition at Ottawa, in the parliamentary 
sessions of 1876, 1877, and 1878. 
EfEect The critical years of the National Policy were 

?^*^'' from the second revision of the tariff in 1884 to 
Kiniey the third revision in 1894. This was the decade 
*f^a9o ^^ what is known in Canadian political history as 
the disappointing census of 1891. There was a 
general election in 1891, and it was a stroke of 
rare good fortune for the Conservative govern- 
ment that the McKinley tariff had been enacted 
at Washington in 1890. 

The McKinley tariff affected farmers and 
lumbermen in Canada more adversely than any 
development at Washington had done since the 
denunciation of the Elgin-Marcy treaty in 1865. 
It created an emotional atmosphere all over 
eastern Canada favorable for the advocates of 
the National Policy, who at that time, and until 
1897, were exclusively of the Conservative party. 
The Conservative government, in 1891, instead 
of sustaining losses, as is usual with a government 
that is becoming stale through long tenure of 
office, slightly improved its position in the house 
of commons, and continued in office until 1896. 
[466] 



THE NATIONAL POLICY 

The Dingley tariff of 1897, with duties much The 
higher than those of the McKinley tariff, greatly tariff ^^ 
helped the Liberal party, after it had abandoned ofiss? 
its fiscal policy of 1 874-1 896, and made peace ^^ 
with the protectionists. At the revision of the protec- 
tariff in 1906-1907, Canadian manufacturers ""wai 
asked for duties as high as those of the Dingley party 
tariff. 

Fielding, minister of finance, refused to con- 
sider this request. If it were complied with it 
would mean that the tariff would be framed not 
at Ottawa, but at Washington. Concessions, 
however, had to be made to the manufacturers, 
who had long complained of the high duties of 
the Dingley tariff. Increases were made in all 
the protective duties; and at this revision of 
1 906-1 907 the Dingley act was nearly as service- 
able to the Liberals as the McKinley act had 
been to the Conservatives at the general election 
of 1891. 

Manifestly from 1858 to 191 7, the year in Canadian 
which the Conservative government at Ottawa •^*®''^^*^ 

... In 

accepted the offer of reciprocity in wheat and tariff- 
flour — an offer made in the Underwood-Sim- '"^'^k 
mons tariff of 1913 — the fiscal policy of Canada, WasUng- 
first the policy of the United Provinces, and then *°° 
for forty-five years the policy of the Dominion, 
was much influenced by the fiscal policy of the 
United States from 1840 to 1913. Tariff-making 
at Washington, especially from 1880 to 1913, 
was watched with keenest interest from all over 

[467] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

the Dominion; for Canada's nearest neighbor 
has always been her biggest customer for a 
large range of the products of her mines, forests, 
and farms, and for an increasing quantity of 
the catch of the Atlantic coast fisheries of the 
Dominion. 



C468] 



CHAPTER XVI 



THE NATIONAL POLICY AND THE 
DEVELOPMENT OF CANADA 



M 



ATERIAL results of the National Policy Indus- . 
on the industrial development of the ^u^g^ 
Dominion are visible, even to a casual observer, of 
from the window of a railroad car on a journey ^^^ 
through the central provinces or the Maritime 
Provinces. They can be seen in Toronto, Hamil- 
ton, Sault Ste. Marie, and London; Montreal, 
Quebec, Valleyfield, Three Rivers, and St. 
Hyacinthe; Halifax, New Glasgow, and Sydney; 
St. John, Fredericton, and Moncton. They are, 
in fact, manifest in every city and factory town 
of Canada east of the Great Lakes; and few of 
these manifestations of industrial development 
and prosperity date further back than Confedera- 
tion. Most of this industrial activity has been 
developed since 1879. 

At Confederation there were four or five Indus- 
cotton mills in the British North American ^^^,^ 

position 

provinces. There were four furnaces — all quite at 
small — where charcoal pig iron was made. ° ® *'" 
There were 2278 miles of railroad, and not a 
cargo carrier on the Great Lakes on the Canadian 
register that was built of iron or steel. 

In 1917 there were in the Dominion twenty- 
nine cotton mills, with 21,400 looms and 106,800 

[469] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Growth 
of the 
cotton 
Industry 

Capacity 
of 

modem 
blast 
fur- 
naces 



RaU 
mills 



MUllng of 
flour 



spindles. In 1867 Canada imported 1300 bales of 
cotton. The mills of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, 
and New Brunswick in 1916 called for 208,000 bales. 

The output of iron at the charcoal furnaces in 
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Quebec in 
the year of Confederation did not exceed 5000 
tons. In the jubilee year there were seven blast 
furnaces in Nova Scotia and eleven in Ontario, 
with an aggregate daily capacity of 4600 tons. 
They were all coke furnaces, equal in design and 
equipment to any of the furnaces at Pittsburgh 
or Cleveland. 

At Confederation, and in fact until 1904, 
Canada imported all her rails from Great Britain 
or the United States. For ten years before the 
war there were rail mills at Sault Ste. Marie and 
Sydney, with a capacity equal, in normal times, 
to the demand of Canadian railways; and in 
some years, between 1907 and 1914, rails from 
these mills were exported. 

Commercial milling of flour was in its infancy 
in 1867. There was an export trade in flour, 
confined to Ontario. The flour went only to 
the Maritime Provinces, the United Kingdom, 
or Newfoundland. In no year before 1879 — 
the year when the National Policy was adopted 
— did the exports of flour reach half a million 
barrels. In 1914 there were 600 flour mills in 
the Dominion, of an aggregate daily capacity of 
112,000 barrels. Of these mills 350 were in 
Ontario and 120 in the prairie provinces. 

C470] 



NATIONAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT 

Exports of flour increased with the extension Exports 
of grain growing in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, °^^°^ 
and Alberta, and with the estabhshment of flour 
mills at Kenora, Winnipeg, Brandon, and other 
cities west of the Great Lakes, From 1902 to 
1914 there was a large development of the flour 
trade with non-British countries, — with China, 
Denmark, Holland, Japan, and Norway, — and 
in 191 5 the total exports of flour reached nearly 
five million barrels. Three quarters of a million 
barrels went to non-British countries. 

A special census of industries taken in 191 5 — indus- 
■^i year in which war expenditures created an *^^ 

. . . . census 

industrial and commercial prosperity without of wis 
precedent — brought out the fact that there 
were 21,291 manufacturing establishments in 
the Dominion. Over 9000 were in Ontario. 
Over 7000 were in Quebec. Nova Scotia had 
nearly 1000. 

The census further showed that there were a pay 
511,000 men, women, and children on the pay ^"°* 
rolls of these establishments; that in 1915 nearly muuon 
$288,000,000 was disbursed in salaries and wages; 
and that the aggregate value of the output was 
$1,392,516,953. 

An era of railway building began soon after Half 
Confederation; for it was a condition with the ^/^'^t^y 

. . of 

Maritime Provinces that the Intercolonial Rail- railway 
way should be constructed. It was also a con- ''"^•^'°s 
dition with British Columbia that it should 
be connected by railway with eastern Canada. 

[471 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Railway building, in fact, was continuous after 
1873. It was going on up to the beginning of 
the war. Even the war did not put a stop to it; 
for while the mileage of Canadian lines in 1914 
stood at 30,755, by the end of 1916 it had been 
increased to 37,434 miles. 
Govern- Towards the cost of these railways the 
™^^* Dominion government, between 1867 and 191 6, 
raUway contributed ^184,719,000; the provincial govern- 
ment"^" rnents contributed $37,437,000; and the mu- 
nicipalities nearly $17,000,000. The Dominion 
government also granted the railway companies 
31,864,000 acres of land in the prairie provinces; 
and the provinces that retained their crown lands 
at Confederation — British Columbia, Ontario, 
Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia — 
granted 13,120,000 acres of their domain to aid 
in the construction of railways. 
PoUtics Canada in 1916 had a population of 185 for 

^ each mile of railway, as compared with 400 in 

buUding the United States. Politics, rather than trans- 
port needs,^ accounted for much of the railway 
building between 1904 and the beginning of the 
war, building largely due to the railway policy 
of the Liberal government of 1896-1911. 
Trans- Two new transcontinental lines were built 

nentai between 1905 and 1914. There was much 
railways double-tracking of the Canadian Pacific, west of 
Fort William, to facilitate the movement of grain 

^ Cf. A. W. Smithers, chairman of Grand Trunk Railway 
Company. "The Answer," 2. 

C472] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

to the head of the lakes. There was in these 
years also much double-tracking of the Grand 
Trunk, the pioneer line of eastern Canada, which 
handles much of the western grain en route from 
transfer ports in Ontario to tidewater at Mont- 
real and Portland, and also serves many of the 
industrial cities and towns of the central provinces. 
New lines were also built that were not of any 
of the three transcontinental systems. 
RaUway The most important of these new lines was 
Nelson *^^ government-owned railway from Le Pas, on 
Hudson the Great Saskatchewan river, in the province 
of Manitoba, to Port Nelson, on Hudson Bay. 
The Laurier government of 1 896-1 911, in direct 
response to an agitation by the organized grain 
growers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, 
committeed the Dominion to this undertaking, 
which, with the wharves and elevator at Port 
Nelson, entailed a charge of $26,ocra,ooo on the 
Dominion treasury. 

Key to Map on Page 475 



Bay 



I. 


Lachine canal 


10. 


Scugog branch of Trent 


2. 


Soulanges canal 




canal 


3- 


Beauharnais canal 


II. 


Welland canal 


4- 


Cornwall canal 


12. 


Grand River feeder 


S- 


Rapide Plat canal 


13- 


Ottawa-Georgia Bay canal 


6. 


Galops canal 




(projected) 


7- 


Rideau canal 


14. 


Murray canal 


8. 


Perth branch of Rideau 


IS- 


Carillon canal 




canal 


16. 


Greenville canal 


9- 


Trent canal 







[474] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



A new 
outlet for 
western 
grain 



Over 
building 
of 
railways 



Water 
trans- 
port 



The line is 420 miles long. It was pushed 
through a wild and altogether unsettled country, 
solely to provide an additional route to Great 
Britain for grain from the prairie provinces, and 
thereby relieve the pressure in the months of Sep- 
tember, October, and November each year on the 
three transcontinental railways that connect the 
grain growing provinces with the numerous trans- 
fer elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur.^ 

The net result of this almost feverish activity 
in railway building from 1904 was that 10,000 
miles were added to the railway mileage; and in 
1916 the Dominion woke up to the fact that, as 
regards railways, it was seriously overbuilt.^ 

From 1884 to 1916, and particularly from 1900 
to 1914, when the grain trade of the west was 
increasing with great rapidity, the development 
of water transport and the building of grain 
carriers for service on the national grain route 
from Port Arthur and Fort William to Montreal 
nearly kept pace with the building of railways. 

A magnificent lock was built at Sault 'Ste. 
Marie. The Welland and St. Lawrence canals — 
seventy-four miles long — were deepened to 

^ Cf. Report of Proceedings at Farmers' Delegation to 
Members of the Government, December 16, 1910, Ottawa, 
1911, 29-31; "The Hudson Bay Railroad," S^ueen's Quarterly, 
Kingston, July, August, September, 1916, 38-45; H. of C. 
Debates, May 3, 1916, and June 11, 1917. 

^ Cf. Report of Royal Commission on Railways, 1915- 
1916; "Canada's Future: A Symposium of Official Opinion," 
1916, 113. 

[476] 



NATIONAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT 

fourteen feet. Canal tolls were abolished. The canais 
St. Lawrence ship channel, which extends for °^^^ 

. grain 

seventy miles below Montreal, was widened to route 
450 feet, and dredged to a depth of thirty feet at 
low water. Great improvements were also made 
at all the lake and tidewater ports on the grain 
route. 

A large fleet of lake carriers — some for service sMp- 
on the upper lakes and some, of lesser tonnage, *»"Udiiig 
for both lake and canal service — went on the 
Canadian register in the years from 1900 to 1914. 
Steel shipbuilding yards were established at Port 
Arthur, Collingwood, Toronto, Kingston, Mont- 
real, Levis, Sorel, and New Glasgow; and at all 
these ports except New Glasgow dry docks were 
built as part of the equipment of the grain route. 

Liberal subsidies were granted to these docks Govem- 
by the Dominion government. By this aid, and ^^^ 
also by a tariff duty of twenty-five per cent on ship- 
the cost of repairs, made to Canadian vessels in b'>"<ii°e 
American shipyards, the government extended 
the National Policy to the steel shipbuilding 
industry. 

These are some of the more visible evidences of National 
the success of the National Policy. It has not ^"""^^ 

. . find 

achieved all that was expected of it in 1879, increase 
especially as regards increase of population. The ^ 
expectation was that protection to industries lation 
would stop the exodus to the United States from 
central Canada and the Maritime Provinces, and 
also attract a large immigration from overseas. 

[477] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

A dis- Immigration did not increase nearly so quickly 

appoint- 3s was expectcd, nor was the exodus to the 

census United States stopped. The official records for 

1881-1891 showed that 886,000 immigrants came 

to Canada. It was confidently expected that 

the census of 1891 would show a population of 

more than five millions. It gave 4,833,000 — 

only 508,000 more than the population in 1881. 

The increase was disappointing to ministers at 

Ottawa who were responsible for the National 

Policy. It was equally so for the protected 

manufacturers, who feared that the Conservative 

government might lose confidence in the National 

Policy. 

Period The stream of immigration continued small 

^^ until the end of the next decade — 1891-1901. 

immi- Then it came in a flood. Immigrants poured in 

gra on fj-Qj^ Great Britain, from the United States, and 

from nearly every country of continental Europe. 

The immigration was so cosmopolitan that in 

1917 forty-eight translations of the Bible were 

on sale in Winnipeg. 

Three million immigrants arrived in the years 
from 1900 to 1915 — only half a million less than 
the total population of the Dominion at Con- 
federation. About half these newcomers arrived 
in the decade from 1901 to 191 1; yet despite 
this large inflow the census of 191 1 showed an 
increase of only 1,835,000 over the returns of 
1 901. 
The Dominion government began its propa- 
C478] 



NATIONAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT 

ganda in 1878. In that year ^36,000 was spent immi- 
on it. In every subsequent year there were sration 

. . propa- 

larger expenditures, until in 1914-1915 the outlay ganda 
reached $1,859,000. Between 1878 and 191 1, ^^^' 
the year of the last census, the total expenditure 
on immigration was $16,146,000. 

Provincial governments in these years also slow 
spent much money in advertising the special ^^"^ 
attractions of their provinces. From 1883 the popu- 
Dominion government had tens of millions of ****°° 
acres of accessible land in what are now the 
prairie provinces, on which free homesteads for 
immigrants were available. Despite an immi- 
gration propaganda on a scale without precedent 
in any English-speaking country, free homesteads 
of 160 acres each for settlers, thirty-two years of 
protection for all manufacturing industries, and 
twenty-eight years of bounties for the iron and 
steel industry, and also much valuable direct 
and indirect aid to industries by hundreds of 
municipalities in eastern Canada, population 
from 1871 to the census of 191 1 was not quite 
doubled. 

One obvious result of the National Policy was Effect of 
the building up of the cities of central Canada p^"°°*' 
at the expense of the rural areas and of agriculture on mrai 
in Ontario. The census of 191 1 showed a decrease fj*"" 

■^ lation 

in population in forty-four out of the forty-five 
rural electoral ridings. This decline in the 
rural and farming population had gone on, 
moreover, notwithstanding that in the decade 

[479] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

covered by the census, 400,000 of the immigrants 
arriving at Canadian ports had given Ontario as 
their destination. While this decrease in rural 
population was going on, the population of 
Toronto increased from 208,000 to 376,000; that 
of Hamilton from 52,000 to 82,000; and that of 
London from 38,000 to 46,000. 
Farm The National Policy made Canada a less de- 

labor sirable place for farmers — especially for farmers 
farm in an industrial province like Ontario — because 
equip- -^ increased the cost of farm equipment, clothing, 
and many domestic supplies,^ and also stripped 
rural Canada of farm laborers. It is these con- 
ditions that explain the agrarian movements 
in Canadian politics since Confederation — the 
agitation of the Patrons of Industry of 1890- 
1896, and the more recent and much more widely 
extended movement of the grain growers' associa- 
tions of the western provinces and of the United 
Farmers of Ontario. 
Agrarian Canada has had singularly few independent 
political movements in politics. The rigidity of the 

move- o J 

ments two-patty system, and the remarkable hold that 
it has had on the people since 1867, are against 
any independent movement in Dominion politics. 
So is the extent to which the daily and weekly 
newspapers of the Dominion are tightly bound 
either to the Conservative or the Liberal party; 
and the system of political patronage as it exists 

1 "The Farmers' Platform," 17-19; "Homesteaders' TariflF 
Burdens," Grain Growers' Guide, October S, 1910. 

[480] 



NATIONAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT 

at Ottawa and at the provincial capitals, the 
scattering of seven and a half million people over 
half a continent, and the stringing out of settle- 
ment and population along a line 4000 miles in 
length, also make the organization of an inde- 
pendent movement in Dominion politics exceed- 
ingly difficult. 

There are Labor and Socialist movements in 
some of the cities. Occasionally in the years 
from 1900 to 1917 a Labor or a Socialist candi- 
date was elected to a provincial legislature. But 
in the first half-century of Confederation only 
farmers and grain growers, when independently 
organized, and acting apart from the Conserv- 
ative and Liberal parties, were able to influence 
policies of the government at Ottawa or the 
policies of the provincial governments of Ontario, 
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. Both 
these agrarian movements — ^the Patrons of In- 
dustry and the grain growers' organizations — 
had their origin in economic conditions developing 
out of the National Policy. 

At Confederation, and for ten or fifteen years The 
after 1867, Canada was the least expensive of ^**i°'^ 
English-speaking countries to live in. More was and the 
possible in one of the smaller cities of Ontario — cost of 
a city or good amenities — on an income or 
twelve or fifteen hundred dollars than in any 
other English-speaking community in any part 
of the world. There was a time when English 
military officers and civil servants on pension, 

[481] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

and other annuitants, emigrated to Ontario, 
because of the beauty and amenities of its smaller 
cities and its towns and villages, and because in 
these places a little money went a long way. 
Its levy Immigration from Great Britain to Canada in 

"'^ those years was to Ontario. In the immigration 

fanners . i • i i i 

and propaganda emphasis was laid on the low cost 

r<frntr= °^ living. The National Policy gradually changed 
this condition. The cost of living constantly 
moved upward in the twenty-five years before 
the war; and on the eve of the war there was no 
country in the English speaking-world where the 
cost of living was higher, or where a protective 
tariff was costing farmers and grain growers and 
salary and wage earners a larger proportion of 
their income. 



earners 



[482: 



CHAPTER XVII 



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 
AND GOVERNMENTS 

IN the preceding chapters most attention has a survey 
been devoted (i) to the evolution of the 
Dominion of Canada; (2) to 'the evolution and 
working of the political institutions of which 
Ottawa is the center; and (3) to the economic 
and fiscal policies, first of the old British North 
American provinces, and afterwards of the 
Dominion. It is the Dominion of Canada — its 
central government and its politics — that most 
interests the United States and the other English- 
speaking countries, and also the world at large. 

The legislatures and governments at the 
provincial capitals have, accordingly, been left 
for the concluding chapter. The powers, duties, 
and functions, so definitely assigned by the British 
North America act to the provinces, have already 
been detailed. They are so clearly defined in the 
act, which also decrees that all classes of subjects 
not specifically assigned to the provinces fall 
automatically to the Dominion, that there can 
never be much conflict or friction between the 
Ottawa government and the governments at the 
provincial capitals. 

An account has also been given of the method 
of appointing lieutenant-governors, and of the 

C483] 



Provin- 
cial 
capitals 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Fran- 
chises 
and 

economic 
interests 



Bi- 
cameral 
legis- 
latures 



Single- 
chamber 
legis- 
latures 



Bi- 
cameral 

system 
discarded 



franchises on which the nine provincial legislatures 
are elected. The economic interests of the nine 
provinces, and the racial and religious interests 
peculiar to Quebec, have also been described; 
and there has also been made clear the connection 
between political leaders at Ottawa and political 
leaders at the provincial capitals, particularly at 
crises at Ottawa, when Dominion administrations 
are in process of formation. 

Furthermore, in the history of Confederation, 
it has also been told how it comes about that 
today only two of the nine provincial legislatures 
— Quebec and Nova Scotia — are bicameral. 
The provincial legislatures existing in 1867 were 
given power to amend the constitutions of the 
provinces, except as regards the office of lieu- 
tenant-governor. 

Ontario, in 1867, when the union with Quebec 
of 1840 came to an end, abandoned the bicameral 
system. British Columbia organized its legisla- 
ture on the single-chamber plan before it came 
into Confederation in 1871. Prince Edward 
Island made a similar reform before it became a 
province of the Dominion in 1873. 

Manitoba, the first province created and 
provided with a constitution by parliament at 
Ottawa, was organized in 1870, with two cham- 
bers. The legislative council at Winnipeg, which 
opened its first session with only seven members, 
disappeared at the end of the session of 1876. 
The second chamber of the New Brunswick 

[484] 



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 

legislature survived until as long after Con- 
federation as 1892. 

In 1905, when parliament created the provinces 
of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and provided 
them with constitutions, the single-chamber plan 
for provincial legislatures was so well established, 
was working so satisfactorily, and the principle 
was so generally accepted, that it was enacted in 
the organic law that the legislatures should have 
only one chamber, to be known as the legislative 
assembly. 

No claim is ever made that the legislatures of Legis- 
Quebec and Nova Scotia, with their elected c^uIcUs 
legislative assemblies, and legislative councils 
appointed nominally by the lieutenant-governor 
acting for the crown, but in practice by the pre- 
mier of the province, are one whit superior to 
the legislatures of the provinces in which there 
are only legislative assemblies. 

Legislative councils, in the provinces in which 
they still survive, have even fewer friends in the 
constituencies and in the press than the senate at 
Ottawa; for while there are ninety-six members 
of the senate, there are only twenty-four legisla- 
tive councilors at Quebec and twenty-one at 
Halifax. 

The legislative councils are of some slight value Their 
to the political party in power. They add a ^^^^^ 
little to the patronage of the premiers. But, 
even if the provincial governments of Quebec 
and Nova Scotia were disposed to follow the 

[485] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

example of the five provinces that since 1867 
have discarded legislative councils, there are 
difficulties that are not easy to surmount. 
Obstacle Legislative councilors, like senators at Ottawa, 
abolition ^°^^ office fot practically as long as they have 
of the strength to carry themselves to the legislative 

counc s chambers. In Quebec a councilor is paid a 
salary of ^1500. At Halifax the salary is $700. 
These salaries have come to be regarded as 
pensions; and at Halifax when attempts were 
made to abolish the second chamber, it was 
found that men appointed to the council, under a 
pledge to vote for its abolition, developed con- 
scientious scruples against implementing the 
pledge "as it is unconstitutional to pledge oneself 
in advance to vote in any particular way." ^ If 
salaries ceased to be paid at Quebec and Halifax, 
the legislative councils there would fall of their 
own weight. The outside props are few, and 
they are admittedly weak and rickety. 
Member- Membership of the legislatures in the seven 
ferfs-** provinces in which there are no upper chambers 
latures varies from thirty in Prince Edward Island to 
106 in Ontario. There are eighty-one members 
of the legislative assembly of Quebec. The odd 
member is from the Magdalen Islands, which 
have been represented in the assembly since 
1897.2 

^ Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," footnote, xxi, 82. 
^ In the winter before the war — the winter of 1913-1914, 
— no fewer than 819 men were engaged in the legislative work 

[486] 



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 



Salaries of members of legislatures range from 
$200, with an additional allowance of $400 for 
the speaker, in Prince Edward Island, to $1500, 
with a salary of $4000 for the speaker, in Quebec. 
The term of a legislature, like the term of parlia- 
ment at Ottawa, is not definitely fixed. It may 
not extend beyond four years. 

In its organization a government at a pro- 
vincial capital is as nearly as possible a replica 
of the government at Ottawa, with a lieutenant- 
governor, domiciled at government house, in 
place of the governor-general; and with a 
secretary of state — or provincial secretary — 
through whom communication is maintained 
with the central government acting through the 
department of state at Ottawa. 

With the colonial office in London, provincial 
governments, on the comparatively few occasions 
on which they come into touch with Whitehall, 
communicate through the department of state 
and the government at Ottawa. 

Responsible government has been established 
at all the provincial capitals since 1870, when 
British Columbia attained the power, rank, and 



Salaries 
of mem- 
bers of 
legis- 
lattires 



Organi- 
zation of 
provin- 
cial 

govern- 
ment 



Colonial 
office 
and 
provin- 
cial 

govern- 
ments 

Party 
lines 



of the Dominion and the provinces. At Ottawa there were 
308 so employed — senators, 87; members of the house of 
commons, 221. At Quebec the number of members of the 
assembly and of the council was 105; at Toronto, 106; at 
Halifax, 59; at Fredericton, 46; at Charlottetown, 30; 
at Winnipeg, 41; at Regina, 41; at Edmonton, 41; and 
at Victoria, 42. 

[487] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

dignity that the other British North American 
provinces had enjoyed for twenty years before 
Confederation. Party Hnes in the provincial 
legislatures are the same as in Dominion politics 

— Liberal and Conservative. In some of the 
legislatures there are usually two or three Labor 
or Socialist members, acting apart from the older 
parties, and not accepting instructions from either 
the government or the opposition whips. 

Legis- At each of the provincial capitals the relations 

^^ ® between the legislature and the ministry — often 
cabinet called, as at Ottawa, the cabinet or the council 

— are the same as at Ottawa; and the procedure 
of the cabinet, in its day by day business, and in 
the event of a ministerial crisis, is the same as 
at the Dominion capital. 

Con- A provincial ministry remains in power only 

ditions so long as it can command a majority in the 
which legislative assembly. If defeated on a vote in 
cabinet ^^g assembly, it must either ask the lieutenant- 
power governor to dissolve the legislature, or the premier 
must tender his resignation to the lieutenant- 
governor, in which case the tenure of office of 
all his colleagues of the ministry, in accordance 
with the constitutional practice at Ottawa, 
comes to an end. 
Disso- In the event of a premier resigning without 

legis- ° asking for a dissolution of the legislature, the 
lature procedure of the lieutenant-governor is similar 
to that of the governor-general under similar 
circumstances. He sends for the leader of the 
[488] 



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 

opposition and calls upon him to form an ad- 
ministration. After the leader of the opposi- 
tion has succeeded in this undertaking — r after 
he himself has become premier, and has formed 
his ministry — it is open to him to ask the 
lieutenant-governor for an immediate dissolution, 
if he is convinced that his following in the legis- 
lative assembly is not sufficiently numerous and 
cohesive to enable him to carry on the king's 
business. 

The ministry of Ontario, as it existed in 191 7, Ministry 
is not quite typical of provincial ministries. The q^^^^ 
political civilization of Ontario is more advanced, 
and more comprehensive, than that of some of 
the other provinces. There is a larger population, 
and more cities and urban life, than in any of 
the other provinces; and Ontario stands towards 
the other provinces in somewhat the same rela- 
tion as Massachusetts stands towards the other 
states of New England. 

The offices constituting the ministry at Toronto a 
are, however, sufficiently typical to illustrate *yp|^*' 
the composition of a provincial government, vinciai 
They are: . "^^^ 

(i) Prime Minister, and 

(2) President of the Council — two offices 
usually held, as at Ottawa, by the same man. 

(3) Attorney-General. 

(4) Provincial Secretary. 

(5) Provincial Treasurer or Minister of Finance. 

(6) Minister of Agriculture. 

C489] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

(7) Minister of Education. 

(8) Minister of Public Works. 

(9) Minister of Lands, Forests, and Mines. 

The long-standing usage at Ottawa of appoint- 
ing men to the cabinet without portfolios — with 
the inherent advantages and disadvantages — 
has been established at Toronto and other of 
the provincial capitals. In the Whitney ad- 
ministration — a Conservative administration — 
at Toronto, as it stood in February, 191 2, there 
were no fewer than three members without 
portfolios. Every member of a provincial cabi- 
net, with or without portfolio, must, of course, 
be a member of the legislature. 

Salaries of provincial premiers range from 
$27(DO iri Prince Edward Island, where the premier 
usually holds also the office of attorney-general,^ 
to ^9000 in Ontario, where the premier is also 
president of the council. Salaries of other 
ministers range from $1500 in Prince Edward 
Island to ^6000 in Ontario and Quebec. These 
salaries are in addition to salaries or indemnities 
— to use the Canadian parliamentary and legal 
term — received as members of the legislature. 

Members of legislatures, unlike members of 
parliament, do not have the privilege of franking 
letters to be carried through the mails. But near 
the table of the clerk, on the floor of the legisla- 
tive chamber, is a basket into which members 

^ Premier, $1000; attorney-general, ^1700. 
[490] 



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 

throw letters written on public business, and 
these letters are stamped at the expense of the 
province. 

Salaries of lieutenant-governors, paid by the Lieu- 
Dominion government, range from $7000 in go^^'o. 
Prince Edward Island, to $10,000 in Quebec 
and Ontario. The upkeep of government house, 
the official home of the lieutenant-governor, is 
defrayed by the province. There is no fixed 
term for the lieutenant-governor. He holds 
office "during pleasure"; but he cannot be 
removed within five years of his appointment, 
except for cause assigned. This provision pre- 
vents vacation of the office merely in order to 
add to the patronage of a new government at 
Ottawa. 

Like the governor-general at Ottawa, a lieu- An even 
tenant-governor at a provincial capital must ride j^^^^ 
on an even keel as regards political parties and politics 
all political agitations. In nearly every instance 
the appointment of lieutenant-governor is made 
as an acknowledgment of partisan service ren- 
dered to the political party in power at Ottawa. 

Once inside government house, however, all 
party activities must cease. The office is rarely 
held by a man who has been in the front rank in 
parliamentary or administrative life at Ottawa. 
Men who attain this rank, and who can hold on 
to their seats in the house of commons, stay at 
Ottawa to the end of the chapter. A lieutenant- 
governorship is usually bestowed on a man of 

[491] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Link 

between 

province 

and 

Dominion 



Organi- 
zation of 
legis- 
lature 



the "old party war horse" variety of politicians 
— on a man who needs an income, and reahzes 
that he has reached an age at which he can do 
Httle more continuous hard work.^ 

As the governor-general is the most apparent 
link connecting the Dominion with Great Britain, 
so the lieutenant-governor is the most apparent 
link connecting a province with the Dominion. 
In all the ceremonies of state, at a provincial 
capital, the lieutenant-governor takes much the 
same part as the governor-general in state cere- 
monies at Ottawa. He formally opens and 
closes the sessions of the legislature, with a 
speech from the throne, which as regards arrange- 
ment and phrasing is closely patterned after the 
speech from the throne at Ottawa. 

A provincial legislature is organized for business 
in exactly the same way as parliament. At the 
opening of a new session there is the debate 
on the address in reply to the speech from the 
throne. Committees are organized as at Ottawa. 
Bills are read a first and second time, considered 
in committee, reported back to the assembly, 
read a third time, and then receive the royal 
assent. 

1 "The lieutentant-governorship is an oflSce where the 
average occupant may be much seen and little heard. The 
office, apart from its social side, is, in fact, designed to take 
up so little of a man's real time, that the suggestion has been 
made to combine it with that of the chief-justiceship in the 
respective provinces." — Tribune, Winnipeg, November 6, 
1917. 

[492] 



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 



Measures before the assembly are classified as ciassi- 

at Ottawa or at Westminster into (i) government ^^^^°° 

bills, (2) private members' billsj and (3) private- legis- 

bill legislation. Members have the same oppor- ^*"^® 

... . , . - measures 

tunities as in the parliament of the Dommion of 

introducing bills and motions, and seeking 

information from the government by questions 

addressed in the assembly to ministers. 

Procedure on the budget and on the estimates Budget 
is similar. The budget system, with ministerial ^^ 
responsibility for every item of expenditure and mates 
for every tax imposed, is as well established, and 
as closely adhered to, at the provincial capitals 
as at Ottawa. The event of a legislative session 
at a provincial capital, in normal years, is the 
exposition of the budget by the provincial treas- 
urer, its discussion in the assembly, and the 
passing of any bill that may be necessary for 
raising additional taxation, or reducing taxes 
previously sanctioned by the legislature. 

In the provinces which possess crown lands — 
British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, New Bruns- 
wick, and Nova Scotia — the treasury is re- 
plenished from three sources. These are (i) two 
annual subventions — one a fixed sum determined 
when the province came into Confederation, and 
the other a grant based on the population of the 
province as ascertained at the last decennial 
census, both paid out of the Dominion treasury; 
(2) direct taxation, such as Hcense fees, income 
tax, and succession duties, levied and collected 

[493] 



Sources 

of 

revenue 



Direct 
taxation 



Loans 

and 

subsidies 



Province 
of 

legis- 
latures 



Checks 
on 

legis- 
latures 



EVOLUTION OF THE" DOMINION OF CANADA 

by virtue of enactments of the legislature; and 
(3) money accruing from the sale or renting of 
crown lands, from stumpage dues collected in 
respect of logs cut on crown lands, and from 
royalties on coal and other minerals; for all 
minerals in Canada are crown property.^ 

All the legislatures have power to levy direct 
taxation; and until 1915, when the Dominion 
parliament, as a war measure, passed an act 
levying a tax on excess profits, the only direct 
taxation in Canada was that collected under 
provincial enactments. 

Legislatures have power to pledge the credit of 
a province to raise loans. They have power also 
to grant subsidies to railway companies. This 
power was so lavishly used from 1876 onward 
that by the end of 1916 the total amount paid 
by provincial governments to railway companies 
stood at nearly thirty-seven and a half million 

dollars. 

Provincial legislatures deal with what may be 
described as municipal afFairs — using the word 
in a comprehensive sense, and "generally," to 
quote the British North America act, "all matters 
of a merely local or private nature within the 

province." 

Under the organic law of the Dominion there 
are three checks on the legislatures. The lieu- 

1 In the year before the war— 1913 — royalties on coal 
alone turned nearly $800,000 into the treasury of the province 
of Nova Scotia. 

[494] 



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 



tenant-governor can withhold the royal assent 
to a bill. He can reserve a bill for the governor- 
general-in-council at Ottawa; and even after a 
bill has received the royal assent and become 
an act, the governor-general-in-council — prac- 
tically the cabinet at Ottawa — can disallow it. 
Disallowance, however, must be proclaimed 
within one year after enactment. 

Under responsible government, as it exists in 
all the provinces, the two checks that the lieu- 
tenant-governor can exercise can seldom come 
into service. They are about as obsolete as the 
king's veto at Westminster and at Ottawa, and 
for the same reasons. The real check is the power 
of disallowance at Ottawa. 

In the early days of Confederation the govern- 
ment at Ottawa was imbued with the idea that 
the relation between the Dominion and the 
provinces was analogous to that between parent 
and child. It acted accordingly. Disallowance 
was frequent. To the older provinces that had 
enjoyed the full measure of responsible govern- 
ment for nearly twenty years before there was a 
parliament and privy council at Ottawa, this 
attitude of the cabinet was disturbing. It was, 
moreover, everywhere resented. 

Cases were carried to the judicial committee 
of the privy council at London — the court of 
last resort for issues arising in Great Britain's 
overseas possessions. This court overthrew the 
early conception of Ottawa as to the status of the 

C 495 ] 



Checks 
that are 
obsolete 



Power 
of 
dis- 
allow- 
ance 



Assumed 
power of 
Dominloi 
cur- 
tailed 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 



Dis- 
allow- 
ance 
In- 
frequent 



Indirect 
check of 
colonial 
office 



Inter- 
vention 
from 
WUte- 
hall 



provinces, by a series of decisions which clearly 
established that the provinces, acting within 
the scope of their powers, conferred on them by 
the organic law of the Dominion, are almost 
sovereign states, and that they are entitled to 
exercise all the prerogatives of the crown not 
conferred on the Dominion.^ 

Only very infrequently are acts of the provin- 
cial legislatures disallowed. Disallowance is a 
power that the Dominion government is exceed- 
ingly loath to exercise. Its exercise is antago- 
nistic to the principle of home rule on which the 
government of the Dominion itself is based; and 
moreover the government is as responsible to 
parliament at Ottawa for the disallowance of an 
act of a provincial legislature as it is for any 
other executive proceeding. 

It is only through this power of disallowance 
that the imperial government can influence or 
check legislation by a province that may impair 
or threaten an imperial interest outside the 
Dominion. 

Intervention in such cases comes in the form of 
a dispatch to the governor-general from the 
secretary of state for the colonies. If the objec- 
tion so communicated from Whitehall to Ottawa 
is held to be good by the minister of justice, he 

1 "So far as necessarily and properly incidental to the 
powers of legislation conferred upon them by the British 
North America act." — Lefroy, "Canada's Federal System," 
footnote, 37. 

[ 496 ] 



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 

recommends the disallowance of the provincial 
act to the cabinet, and disallowance follows. 

As recently before the war as 191 1 an act instance 
relating to accountants in Ontario — an act f*^ 
making accountancy, like medicme, a closed vention 
profession, closed against accountants from other ^^ 
provinces, and also from the United Kingdom — office 
was disallowed on colonial office intervention, 
an intervention in the interests of members of 
the English Institute of Chartered Accountants.^ 

There is still in existence power by which the 
imperial government can disallow an act of the 
Dominion parliament. But only indirectly can 
it bring about the disallowance of an act of a 
provincial legislature. 

There is one other restriction on the powers of Restiic- 
a provincial legislature which will come at once **°° °° 
to mind when the chapters on Confederation of 
and the British North America act are recalled, j^^^ 
No province may, without liability of coming 
into serious conflict with the government at 
Ottawa, legislate prejudicially affecting any right 
or privilege with respect to denominational 
schools which any class of persons — Protestants 
or Roman Catholics — had by law at the time 
of the union of 1867. 

The rights of minorities in respect to separate Separate 
schools — parish schools, as they would be called ^*^ °° ^ 
in the United States — are strictly safeguarded 
by the British North America act. In practice 
1 Cf. Lefroy, "Canada's Federal System," 33. 

[497] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

four of the provinces — British Columbia, New 
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward 
Island — are not affected by this section of the 
organic law of the Dominion. There were no 
parish schools, within the interpretation of section 
93 of the British North America act, in British 
Columbia or in any of the Maritime Provinces, 
at the times when these four provinces entered 
Confederation. 



Courts of 
appeal 



Legisla- 
tures and 
the 
courts 



I. The Judicial System 

Courthouses are built and maintained at the 
expense of the provinces. Judges, however, are 
appointed by the government at Ottawa. On 
reaching the age of seventy a judge may retire 
on pension. Appointees to the bench must be of 
the bar of the province in which they are to serve. 

In each province there is a supreme court or 
a court of appeal. From this court cases can be 
carried to the supreme court of Canada, which 
holds its sessions at Ottawa. In certain cases 
appeals can be carried to the judicial committee 
of the privy council at Whitehall. The power 
of the supreme court at Ottawa is not comparable 
with that of the supreme court at Washington. 

"In the United States," Mr. Justice Riddell, 
of the supreme court of Ontario, told students 
at Yale University in 1916, "the courts are 
supreme: in Canada, the people through their 
representatives. In one country a few men say 
to the legislative bodies, 'thus far shalt thou go 

C498] 



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 

and no further.' In the other the legislating 
bodies say to the courts, 'thus far and thus 
shalt thou go, and no further or otherwise.'" 

" Half a dozen men in the United States," a con- 
continued Riddell, "sitting up in a quiet chamber, ^^^^ 
can paralyze the activity of a senate and house, supreme 
may say that a measure imperatively called *^f^g 
for in the public interest cannot be validly en- United 
acted, and the legislators, the people, are help- ^^^^ 
less. That is called republicanism, democratic of the 
government; and there is searching of soul and °™»°*o° 
shaking of heads, when anyone suggests that the 
people be asked if that little coterie have cor- 
rectly interpreted the popular will formerly and 
formally expressed in a state constitution. In 
Canada should the court fail to apprehend the 
real intention of an enactment, any government 
which can command the support of the people 
can at once correct the error." ^ 

Occasionally men have been appointed to the 
bench in Canada whose distinction had been 
achieved, not at the bar, but by long and con- 
tinuous service in Dominion politics. But there 
is less of politics, and political maneuvers, in 
connection with the courts than in any other 
department of state service in the Dominion. 

The judiciary stands high in public estimation judiciary 
— as high as the judiciary of the United King- *° 
dom; and it there is one department or state in esteem 
Canada that is imbued and permeated with the 
1 Riddell, 145-146. 

[499] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

spirit that actuates the people of England and 
Scotland in the working of their political institu- 
tions — local as well as national — it is that which 
is charged with the administration of justice. 



II. Character of Municipal and Provincial 
Governments 

Each of the provinces has its own municipal 
code for the organization and administration of 
municipal affairs in counties, villages, towns, 
and cities. Each legislature enacts its own code; 
but the codes of the several provinces are fairly 
uniform. 

In municipal organization and economy the 
provinces have not followed British precedents 
as closely as these have been followed from 
municipal ^j^g beginning of political civilization in Canada 

system . , . . ~ , . . 

m the organization or the representative and 
administrative institutions of the provinces and 
the Dominion. 

More of the municipal officers in Canada are 
directly elected than in Great Britain. There 
is also some divergence from the British system 
in the organization of municipal councils. Mont- 
real has long been notorious for its poor, loose, 
and inefficient municipal administration.^ It is 

1 Cf. Queen's Quarterly, Kingston, Vol. XXV, No. 2, 130; 
L. D. David, "Our Municipal Situation," Gazette, Montreal, 
October 14, 1917; "Municipal Affairs," Gazette, October 16, 
1917; "Gave Montreal a Poor Character," Gazette, November 
2, 1917; "The City's Government," Gazette, November 3; 

C500] 



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 

singular in this respect among the cities of the 
Dominion; for elsewhere municipal administra- 
tion — like the administration of justice all over 
the Dominion — attains the municipal standards 
of England and Scotland. 

The reputation of the provinces of Ontario, Political 
Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island for a ^°^~ 

' . dltions 

generation before the war stood high. The in 
history of these three provinces in this period is ^*'^" 
free from exposures of ineptitude, disregard of 
public interests, and corruption. Their govern- 
ment was stable, and little affected by the ups 
and downs of parties in Dominion politics. 

Their legislatures, their administrations, and 
the provincial officers working under the direction 
and supervision of these administrations, enjoyed 
popular confidence and esteem. People of On- 
tario, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island 
had to offer no apologies for political conditions 
in their provinces. 

Of none of the other six provinces could similar 
statements be made.^ Governments in these 

"Citizens' Association Discuss City Government, Gazette, 
November 3; "Municipal Honors," Gazette, Montreal. 
December i, 1917. 

^ "There is not much evidence of administrative jobbery 
under Sir Lomer Gouin in Quebec. In New Brunswick there 
have been many deplorable incidents, but unfortunately 
there has always been a good deal of political looseness in 
that province. Gross corruption has been exposed in Mani- 
toba and Saskatchewan. There is much suspicion surround- 
ing methods of administration in Alberta. The government 

[501 ] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

provinces were not always pointed to with pride. 
Exposures — some of them forthcoming at trials 
In the criminal courts — of corruption in connec- 
tion with contracts for public buildings, railway- 
subsidies, government guarantees of bonds of 
railway undertakings, grants of public lands to 
promoters of railways, or scandals in the legis- 
latures, or scandals in connection with campaign 
funds or the liquor trade were, in the fifteen or 
twenty years before the war, common to all of 
them. 

Peculiarly gross scandals were revealed in 
Manitoba in 1916; in British Columbia in 1917; 
and in New Brunswick in 1916, and again in 
191 7. In Manitoba it was corruption in the 
awarding of contracts for a new legislative 
building.^ In British Columbia it was graft in 
abundance in connection with subsidies to a 
railway company — some of which accrued to a 
campaign fund of the Conservative party — 
that was laid bare. 

It was the same in New Brunswick, where it 
was revealed in 1917 that in 191 2 the campaign 
fund of the local Conservative party was gener- 



of British Columbia is under attack, and wholesale persona- 
tion has been exposed in Vancouver. Thus conditions in the 
west may warrant the deHverance of the Methodist Laymen's 
Association. But the statements are not justified by condi- 
tions in Ontario." — News, Toronto, June 18, 1916. 

^ Cf. "The Manitoba Trial," Gazette, Montreal, September 
6, 1916. 

[502] 



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 

ously replenished by a contractor then engaged 
in building a railway, the second mortgage bonds 
of which had been guaranteed by the provincial 
government at Fredericton. 

At this revelation in New Brunswick, where 
there had been a campaign-fund exposure in 
1916/ the Gazette, of Montreal, long the leading 
Conservative newspaper of the Dominion, edi- 
torially recalled the similar scandal revealed in 
British Columbia, in May, 1917. "Now," it 
continued,^ "come charges of a similar nature, 
with New Brunswick as the center. East or 
west, it is all the same." ' 

^ Cf. "How Parties Are Recruited," Tribune, Winnipeg, 
June 7, 1916. 

* August 17, 1917. 

' Revelations of political conditions in several of the 
provinces in 1916-1917 were described in the undermentioned 
editorial articles: 

"What Is a Party For?" Tribune, Winnipeg, April 20, 1916. 

"Under Thick Clouds," Tribune, Winnipeg, June 24, 1916. 

" Game's Up in New Brunswick," Citizen, Ottawa, May 19, 
1916. 

"A Trial of Import," Gazette, Montreal, June 16, 1916. 

"The Manitoba Trial," Gazette, Montreal, September 6, 
1916. 

"A Western Scandal," Gazette, Montreal, May 14, 1917. 

"A Bit Too Thick," Beacon, Stratford, Ontario, reprinted, 
Globe, Toronto, August 4, 19 17. 

"Campaign Contributions," Globe, Toronto, August 18, 
1917. 

"The Flemming Incident," and also "Sir Hibbert Tupper 
as a Critic," Tribune, Winnipeg, August 21, 1917. 

C503] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

III. Political Civilization in New and in Old 
World Countries 

These failures of leaders of political parties 
who were in control at several of the provincial 
capitals in the twenty years before the war 
to maintain high standards in public life — like 
obvious evils that have developed in fifty years' 
working of the representative and administrative 
institutions of the Dominion — ; are, it must be 
emphasized, not inherent in the democratic 
franchises on which the house of commons at 
Ottawa and the provincial legislatures are 
elected. Nor are they inherent in the system of 
responsible government — a system which, with 
the constitutional machinery of which the cabinet 
is the center, and with the wide powers conferred 
on the governments of the Dominion and of the 
provinces by the constitution of 1867, can be 
made to afford the Canadian people a larger 
political freedom than is enjoyed under the 
constitutional system of any other country. 

Fifty years in the life of a nation is a very 
brief period; and conditions in Canada from 
Confederation to 191 7 are not likely to continue 
indefinitely. In this period, and in particular 
from 1880 to 1914, Canada was essentially a new 
and developing country. In new and develop- 
ing countries public spirit is seldom continuously 
operative at its full strength. It is usually not 
aggressive in asserting itself. 

[ 504 ] 



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 



There are no long traditions of service to the 
state. Social distinction does not go In the fullest 
measure to men who are serving the state, except, 
perhaps. In the highest offices. Opportunities for 
making money — for piling up wealth — are much 
more numerous than In an old world country; 
and men who are making money by exploiting 
the resources and people of a new country — men 
who are wholly engrossed In making money — 
are disposed to be Indifferent as to the forces 
that are molding the political civilization In 
which they live. Especially Is this so If the poli- 
ticians are complaisant and accommodating when 
men who are concerned only in the "politics of 
business" — men who are always amply repre- 
sented at the political capitals of new world coun- 
tries — are seeking tariff and bounty concessions, 
and other valuable concessions and privileges 
which it is In the power of government to bestow. 

The development of political standards and 
ideals, and the establishment of rules and codes 
of political life and conduct, are apt to be post- 
poned to a more convenient season, until individ- 
ual and national material success shall have been 
abundantly achieved. Obviously In a new coun- 
try democracy as regards the electoral franchise 
and the working of representative institutions, 
such as parliament and the cabinet, has not the 
fair field that since 1867, and particularly since 
1 884-1 885, has been the good fortune of 
democracy in England and Scotland. 

[505] 



Lack of 

traditions 

of 

service 

to the 

state 



Politics 
of 
business" 



Stand- 
ards 
and 
ideals 
slow in 
estab- 
lishing 
them- 
selves 



SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES 

Adderley, Sir C. B. "The Colonial Policy 
of Lord J, Russell's Administration, and Subse- 
quent History." 1869. 

Acer, Clarus. "The Farmer and the Inter- 
ests, A Study in Parasitism." 1916. 

Argyll, Ninth Duke of. "Passages from 
the Past." 1907. 

AuDETTE, A. L. "Canadian Historical Dates 
and Events." 1918. 

Begg, Alexander, "History of British Colum- 
bia." 1894. 

Bell, Sydney Smith. "Colonial Administra- 
tion of Great Britain." 1859. 

Benson, A. C, and Esher, Viscount. "The 
Letters of Queen Victoria, 183 7-1 861." 1907. 

BouRiNOT, J. G. "How Canada is Governed." 

1895. 

BouRiNOT, Sir J. G. "Canada." 1908. 

Boyd, J. "Sir George Etienne Carrier. A 
Political History of Canada from 18 14 until 
1873." 1914. 

Bradshaw, E. " Self-Government in Canada, 
and How It Was Achieved," 1909. 

Bruce, Sir Charles. "The Broadstone of 
Empire: Problems of Crown Colony Adminis- 

[507] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

tration, with Records of Personal Experience." 
1910. 

Buckingham, William, and Ross, George W. 
"The Hon. Alexander Mackenzie: His Life and 
Times." 1892. 

Burpee, L. J. "Sandford Fleming: Empire 

Builder." 191 5. 

Burt, A. F. "Imperial Architects: Propos- 
als in the Direction of a Closer Imperial Union, 
Made Previous to the First Colonial Conference 

of 1897." 1913- 

Canadian Council of Agriculture, Wmnipeg. 
"The Farmers' Platform." 1917. 

"Canadian Politics, Handbook on." 1904. 

Canal Commission. Sessional Papers, Ottawa, 
1871. No. 54. 

Cartwright, Sir Richard. " Reminiscences." 

1912. 

Clarke, C. "Sixty Years of Upper Canada." 

1908. 
Clifford, Frederick. "A History of Private 

Bill Legislation." 1885. 

Clowes, W., and Sons. "Rules and Regu- 
lations for Her Majesty's Colonial Service." 

1843. 

CowiE, F. W. "The Transportation Prob- 
lem in Canada and Montreal Harbor." Pro- 
ceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, 

London. 1915- 

Denison, William. " Varieties of Vice-regal 

Life." 1870. 

[508] 



SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES 

Durham, Lord. "Report on the Affairs of 
British North America." Edited by Sir C. P. 
Lucas. 1912. 

Edgar, J. D. "Canada and Its Capital 
With Sketches of PoUtical and Social Life at 
Ottawa." 1898. 

Egerton, H. E., and Grant, W. L. "Cana- 
dian Constitutional Developments, Shown by 
Selected Speeches and Despatches, with Intro- 
ductions and Explanatory Notes." 1907. 

Egerton, H. E. "A Historical Geography 
of the British Colonies." Edited by Sir Charles 
P. Lucas. Vol. V, "Canada." 1908. 

Gray, J. H. "Confederation of Canada." 
1871. 

Grey, Charles, Third Earl Grey. "The 
Colonial Pohcy of Lord John Russell's Adminis- 
tration." 1853. 

Griffin, Watson. "Canada: The Country 
of the Twentieth Century." 191 5. 

Hammond, M. O. "Confederation and Its 
Leaders." 1917. 

Harpell, James J. "Canadian National 
Economy: The Cause of High Prices and Their 
Effect upon the Country." 191 1, 

Herbertson, a. J., and Howarth, O. J. R. 
"The Oxford Survey of the British Empire. 
America: Including Canada, Newfoundland, the 
British West Indies, and the Falkland Islands 
and Dependencies." Vol. IV, 1914; also "Gen- 
eral Survey," Vol. VI, 1914. 

[ 509] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 
HuRD, P. and A. "The New Empire Partner- 
ship." 1916. . ^^. f T7 • 

Johnson, Stanley C. "A History of Emi- 
gration from the United Kingdom to North 
America, 1763-1912." I9I3- 

Keith, A. B. "Responsible Government in 

the Dominions." 1909- , , _ 

Leroy, a. H. F. "Canada's Federal System: 
A Treatise on Canadian Constitutional Law 
under the British North America Act " 1913- 

Liberal Convention of 1893. Official Report 
of the Liberal Convention Held in Response to 
the Call of Hon. Wilfrid Laurier, Leader ot the 
Liberal Party of the Dominion of Canada 1893. 

Mackenzie, Alexander. "The Life and 
Speeches of George Brown." 1882. ^^ 

Macphail, Andrew. "Essays m Politics. 

'^Merivale, Herman. "Lectures on Coloniza- 
tion and Colonies." 1841- 

Parker, C.S. "Sir Robert Peel. 1899. 

PoRRiiT, E. and A. G. "The Unreformed 
House of Commons: Parliamentary Represen- 
tation before 1832." 1903- 

PoRRiTT, E. "A Century and ^^ Ha f of Eng- 
lish Journalism in Canada." The World s Press. 

London, 1906. ^- :„ 

PoRRiTT, E. "Sixty Years of Protection m 

Canada." 1908. . ^. , 

Pope, Sir Joseph. "Memoirs of /he ^^f/ 
Honourable Sir John Alexander MacDonald, 

[510I 



SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES 

G. C. B., First Prime Minister of the Dominion 
of Canada." 1894, 

Pope, Sir Joseph. "Confederation Papers." 
1895. 

Reid, Stuart J. "Life and Letters of the 
First Earl of Durham, 1 792-1 840." 1906. 

Report of Proceedings in the Hearing by Mem- 
bers of the Government of the Farmers' Dele- 
gation, December 16, 1910. 191 1. 

Riddell, William Renwick. "The Consti- 
tution of Canada in Its History and Practical 
Working." 191 7. 

Roche, W.J. "Immigration: Facts and Fig- 
ures." 1915. 

Ross, Sir George William. "The Senate of 
Canada." 1910. 

Rules of the House of Commons of Canada. 
1909. 

Saunders, E. M. "Life and Letters of Sir 
Charles Tupper." 1916. 

ScROPE, G. Poulett. "Memoir of the Life 
of Lord Sydenham. With a Narrative of His 
Administration in Canada." 1843. 

Sinclair, Robert Victor. "The Rules and 
Practice before the Parliament of Canada upon 
Bills of Divorce." 191 5. 

Stimson, E. R. "History of the Separation of 
Church and State in Canada." 1888. 

Todd, Alpheus. " Parliamentary Government 
in the British Colonies." 1880. 

Tremenheere, Hugh Seymour. "Notes on 

[511] 



EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 

Public Subjects, Made During a Tour in the 
United States and Canada." 1852. 

TuppER, Sir Charles. "Recollections of 
Sixty Years." 1914. 

Wallace, W. S. "The United Empire Loyal- 
ists: A Chronicle of the Great Migration." 

Walrond, Theodore. "Letters and Journals 
of the Earl of Elgin." 1872. 

Weaver, Emily P. "A Canadian History." 
1900. 

WiLLSON, Beckles. "Life of Lord Sttathcona 
and Mount Royal." 191 5. 

WiLLisoN, J. S. "Sir Wilfrid Laurier and 
the Liberal Party." 1903. 

Wrong, G. M., Willison, Sir John, Lash, 
Z. A., and Falconer, R. A. "The Federation of 
Canada." 1917. 



C512] 



INDEX 



Abbott, Sir John J. C, 
290, 362 

Aberdeen, Earl of, 155, 256 

Aberdeen government, 158 

Act of 1774, 64 

Act of 1905, increasing allow- 
ances of members of parlia- 
ment, 388 

Act of 1872, against dual 
representation, 334 

Act of Union, 1840, 108, 109; 
and raising of revenue, 
109; demands not con- 
ceded in, no 

Adams, G. B., 72 n 

Adderley, colonial secretary, 
206, 226 

Addington, speaker, 380 

Address to the crown, debate 
on, 403, 404, 405, 406 

Adjournment, leave to move, 
426 

Advertising by Canada, 448, 

479 
Agriculture, minister of, 354 
Agriculture, power of prov- 
inces over, 234 
Alabama claims, 201, 206 
Alberta, 14, 31, 41, 188, 212, 



474; created a province, 
16; climate of, 18; and 
crown lands, 56; and 
divorce, 166; and federal 
union, 217; and separate 
schools, 239, 371; and the 
senate, 270; representation 
of, in house of commons, 
305, 309; and the cabinet, 
358; and enfranchisement 
of women, 376; and Brit- 
ish preference, 440; and 
single-chamber legislature, 

48s 

Algoma, 317; franchise in 
territory of, 318 

American revolution, lesson 
of, II 

Amherst, N. S., 198 

Antigonish, 317 

Appropriation bills, 419 

Argyll, Duke of, 255; remi- 
niscences of, 256 

Aristocracy, hereditary, at- 
tempt to estabhsh, 70; 
dislike of, 366; end of 
third attempt to establish, 
370 

Ashcroft, so 

[513] 



INDEX 



Attorney-general, 354 

Augusta, Maine, 201 

Australia, 59, 166; and con- 
victs, 61; and British 
connection, -1 29; and fiscal 
freedom, 443; and British 
preference, 448 

Austria, and British com- 
mercial treaties, 449 

Autonomy for dominions, 
and tie to Great Britain, 12 

Bagot, Sir Charles, hi, 
119, 123, 145, 179; life 
of, 116; English disap- 
proval of, 118 

Baldwin, Robert, 117, 120, 
123, 251; and responsible 
government, 124 

Balfour, A. J., 443 

Ballot papers, 346; counting 

of, 347 

Banks, representative, 202 

Baronetcies, in Canada, 73, 
365, 366 

Barrie, Isaac, 64 

Belgium, and British prefer- 
ence, 442, 443 

Belle Island, 29 

Bicameral system, 56, 484, 

48s 
Bilingual legislatures, 75, 80, 

108, 152, 403 
Bill No. I, 386 
Bills, rejected by senate, 272, 

288; procedure on, in 

house of commons, 409, 

[514] 



410, 411; stages of, 411, 
422; reserved, 412; classes 
of, 414; appropriation, 419 

Bills, reserved, in Act of 
Union, no 

Black rod, 280, 384 

Blaine, J. G., 203 

Blair, minister of railways 
and canals, 374 

Blake, Edward, 11, 310, 332, 
362, 412, 414 

Borden, Sir Robert L., 298, 
314,333,363; and cabinet, 
360; attends British cabinet 
meetings, 364 

Borden government, 301, 
353; and obstruction, 422 

Boston, 35 

Bounties, on hemp, in New 
Brunswick, 174; on fish, 
in Prince Edward Island, 
174; opposed by liberals, 
395; and National Policy, 
430, 434, 457; on iron 
and steel, 479 

Bowell, Sir Mackenzie, 290, 

374 

Boyd, 72 n, 82 n 

Brandon, 20, 471 

Brassey, Lord, 113 

Bridge, The, 38, 217; cHmate 
of, 40; and the prairie 
provinces, 40 

Bright, John, 333 

British cabinet, and Cana- 
dian premiers, 364 

British empire, extent of, 2 



INDEX 



British, and election to Do- 
minion house of commons, 
330 

British colonial history, 
dreary period in, 82 

British colonial policy, three 
eras in, 9; and central 
Canada, 23; previous to 
1846, 81; and British 
shipping, 81; until 1846, 
109; and responsible gov- 
ernment, 144; change in, 

159 

British colonies, in 1783, 59; 
indifference to, 60 

British Columbia, 16, 163, 
187, 213, 297, 305; indus- 
tries of, 46; boundaries 
of, 49; description of, 
50; people of, 51; immi- 
gration into, 5 1 ; history of, 
before Confederation, 52, 
54; statesmen of, 53; 
and Confederation, 55; 
and crown lands, 56; and 
immigration 57, 327; and 
grain-growing provinces, 
57; resources of, 57; poli- 
cies of, 58; and sectarian 
education, 75; and bi- 
lingual legislature, 75; and 
protection, 176; and Bul- 
wer Lytton, 191; and 
Confederation, 211, 220; 
and Chinese immigration, 
234; and unsectarian 
schools, 242; and the 



senate, 270; divorce courts 
in, 287; and the cabinet, 
358; and bounties, 431; 
and railways, 471; and 
single-chamber legislature, 
484; and separate schools, 
498; scandals in, 502 

British connection, 162; 
strengthening of, 131; and 
French Canada, 153, 154; 
and the senate, 271 

British navy, 398, 422 

British North America act, 
180, 216, 339; and reso- 
lutions of Quebec con- 
vention, 200; in parlia- 
ment, 205, 206; working 
of, 214; division of powers 
in, 228; provisions of, 229; 
and education, 236, 238, 
497; and money bills, 249; 
and representation in house 
of commons, 306; and 
electoral franchises, 317; 
and assembling of parlia- 
ment, 378; and the prov- 
inces, 483, 494, 497 

British North American prov- 
inces, number of, 74; 
rights of, in 1867, 213, 327 

British parliament, and Ca- 
nadian reforms, 151, 159; 
and clergy reserves bill, 
156; procedure of, 400 

British preference, none be- 
fore 1897, 177, 447; of 
1897, 435; reduced in 

C515] 



INDEX 



1907. 435. 452; protection 
and, 437; and British 
trade, 437; political effect 
of, 439, 451; and grain 
growers, 441; return for, 
447; for other colonies, 448; 
as advertising, 448; and 
United States, 450; effects 
of, 451; adopted by other 
dominions, 451 

British West Indies, 59 

Brockville, 106 

Brown, George, 11, 162, 332; 
and Confederation, 195, 
197, 209, 220; and schools 
question, 237; and elective 
senators, 268; and sena- 
torial divisions, 271; and 
senate deadlocks, 276; as 
senator, 290; and reciproc- 
ity, 454 

Bruce, Sir Charles, 8 n 

Bruce, "Broadstone of Em- 
pire," 88 n 

Buchanan, Isaac, 169 

Budget, 415; debate on, 417; 
of provinces, 493 

Buffalo, 32, 3S» 36 

Burke, Edmund, 64 

Burpee, 64 n 

Bytown, Ottawa, 106 

Cabinet, and the senate, 
293; and elections, 351; 
appointment to, 351, 355; 
members of, 352, 353; 
salaries of members of, 
C516] 



354; representation of, 
provinces in, 357, 358; 
and ministry, 363; and 
titles, 369; reelection after 
appointment to, 370; func- 
tions of, 372; collective 
responsibility of, 373; res- 
ignations from, 373; and 
open questions, 376; and 
assembling of parliament, 
378 

Cabinet government, estab- 
lishment of, 112; in United 
Provinces, 164 

Cabinet ministers, reelection 
of, 370, 371; resignation 
of» 373, 374; duties of, 
377 

Cabinet system, based on 
usage, 249 

Calder, of Saskatchewan, 359 

Calgary, 26 

Cameron, Simon, 204 

Canada, in 1783, 59; popu- 
lation of, 60 

Canada, Dominion of, area 
of, 13; coastline of, 14; 
climate of, 18 

Canadians and election to 
British parliament, 330 

Canadian barons, 37 

Canadian Manufacturers' 
Association, 453 

Canadian Northern Railway, 

57 _ ; 

Canadian Pacific Railway, 
25, 36, 38, 41, 457; open- 



INDEX 



ing of, is; double-tracking 
of, 473 

Canadian Pacific Railway 
scandal of 1872, 260, 335, 
336 

Canals, American, 15 

Canals, Canadian, 15 

Candidates for election, de- 
posits by, 341, 342; nomi- 
nation papers of, 344; 
and ballot papers, 346 

Cape Breton, as province, 
74 n 

Cape Colony, 145 

Cardwell, Edward, secretary 
for colonies, 207 

Carleton, Guy, 182 

Carnarvon, Earl of, 206; 
and Confederation, 221, 
226; and separate schools, 
238, 246 

Carrier, George Etienne, 11, 
72 n, 86, 190, 424; and 
Confederation, 191, 209, 
223 

Cartier, Jacques, 15 

Cartier-Macdonald govern- 
ment, 197 

Cartwright, Sir Richard, 11, 
99, 290, 291, 333 

Cattle ranching, 44 

Caucus, 387, 388, 420 

Cayley tariff, 167, 169, 175, 

398 
Census of industries, 471 
Central Canada, 22; and 

Canadian constitutional 



history, 23; and manu- 
facturing, 29 

Ceylon, 87 

Chairing a member, 328 

Chamberlain, Joseph, 113, 
333; and colonial prefer- 
ences, 452 

Charlottetown, 17, 24; con- 
ference of, in 1864, 74 

Charlottetown convention, 
198 

Chatham, Earl of, 64, 65 

Chiltern Hundreds, 350 

China, trade with, 471 

Chinese, in British Colum- 
bia, 234 

Civil list, in Act of Union, 
109; amendment concern- 
ing, 152; control over, 163 

Civil servants, and the fran- 
chise, 320, 323. 328 

Clarke, Charles, 109 n 

Clarus Ager, 37 n, 47 n 

Clear Grits, 148 

Clergy reserves, 70, 155, 163, 
177; at union of provinces, 
105; settlement of ques- 
tion of, 151, 156; and 
tithes, 155 n 

Clerk of the crown in chan- 
cery, 338 

Closure, 421, 422; and 
Quebec, 424 

Coal companies, of Nova 
Scotia and Alberta, 36 

Coal, duties on, 432; and 
reciprocity, 457 

[517] 



INDEX 



Coal fields, 19; of Nova 
Scotia, 433 

Coal supplies of Canada, 20 

Colborne, 35 

CoUingwood, 35 

Colonial Advocate, 91 

Colonial constitutions, 67 

Colonial office, and respon- 
sible government, 144; 
and fiscal policy of 
colonies, 174; and provin- 
cial governments, 487; and 
provincial legislation, 496 

Colonial policy, British, see 
British Colonial Policy 

Colonies, and British con- 
nection, 129 

Commercial policy of Great 
Britain, 81 

Commercial treaties, right to 
make, 150 

Committee stage on bills, 411 

Committees of house of com- 
mons, 407 

Compensation for rebellion 
losses, 135 

Concurrent legislation, 233 

Concurrent tariff legislation, 
461 

Confederation, principle of 
representation at, 107; 
coming of, 180; influences 
for, 181; first suggestions 
of, 182, 183; forces for, 
188; agreement concern- 
ing, 198; and Quebec con- 
vention, 199; resolutions 

[518] 



against in Congress, 202; 
British attitude towards, 
210; and separate schools 
question, 236; and pro- 
tection, 432; and bicameral 
legislatures, 484 
Confederation, Fathers of, 

189, 206, 208, 214, 223 
Conference between senate 

and house, 285 
Connaught, Duke of, 256 
Conservatives, 150, 343; and 
the senate, 288, 301; and 
electoral franchises, 320; 
and the tariff, 398, 434; 
and British preference, 439, 
440 
Consolidated fund, 152 
Constitution of Canada, 228- 

233 
Constitution of Dominion of 

Canada, unwritten, 249 
Constitution of United Prov- 
inces, 249; amendments to 

151, 157, 160 
Convention of 18 18, threat 

to abrogate, 187 
Convicts, and transportation, 

61; in American colonies, 

61 
Cornwall, Ontario, 106 
Corruption, at Toronto and 

Quebec, 82; at Ottawa, 85, 

257 
Cost of living in Canada, 481 
Cotton industry and National 

Policy, 469 



INDEX 



Cowie, F. W., 34 « 

Crown colonies, and colonial 
office, i; government of, 
6; classification of, 6; 
British policy towards, 7; 
grants in aid to, 8; and 
British preference, 448 

Crown colony rule, before 
1837, 86, 87; modern 
principles of, 88 

Crown lands, 149; at Con- 
federation, 56; in British 
North America act, 233; 
granted to railways, 473; 
and provincial legislation, 

493 > 494 
Customs duties, 416 
Customs, minister of, 354, 363 

Dawson City, 299 

Deadlock, between senate 
and house, 275 

Debates in parliament, re- 
porting of, 398; and 
closure, 423, 424 

Democracy in Canada, 499, 
504; in 1840-1867, 179 

Denison, Sir William, and re- 
sponsible government, 252 

Denmark, trade with, 471 

Dent, John Charles, 84 n 

Department of immigration 
and colonization, 352, 359 

Department of interior, 353 

Departments, government, 
352. 353, 354; and esti- 
mates, 418 



Deposits by candidates, 342, 

344» 345 
Deputy speaker, 383 
Derby administration, 191, 

209, 212 

Derby, Earl of (Lord Stan- 
ley), 141, 158, 160; and 
" Dominion of Canada," 
200 

Derby-Disraeli government, 

210, 221 

Desks, in house of commons, 

392 

Detroit River, 60 

Dingley bill, 450, 467 

Direct taxation, 494 

Disallowance of legislation, 
234, 253, 495. 496, 497 

Disqualifications of parlia- 
mentary candidates, 333 

Disraeli, Benjamin, 212, 333 

Dissolution of parliament, 
335; in 1872,336; in 1911, 
336; by governor-general, 

337 

Divorce and United Prov- 
inces legislature, 165; at 
Confederation, 166 

Divorce bills, in senate, 284, 
286; number of, 286; and 
Ontario and Quebec, 287; 
reserved, 412 

Divorce courts, 287 

Doak, printer, 75 

Dominion of Canada, 483; 
rights of, 215; and British 
treaties, 215; powers of, 

[519] 



INDEX 



224; status of, in 1876, 

413 

Dominion franchise bill of 
1885, 319; condemned in 
provinces, 321; arguments 
against, 322; repealed in 
1898, 323 

Dominion government, 211; 
and grants to railways, 473 ; 
and subventions to prov- 
inces, 493 

Dominion Trades and Labor 
Congress, 344 

Dominions, and colonial 
oflEce, i; enumerated, 2; 
area of, 3; population of, 
3; tariffs of, 4; and 
contributions to Great 
Britain, 4; and British 
national debt, 4; no in- 
terference with, from 
Westminister, 5 

Draper-Viger government, 
124, 140; and Lord Elgin, 
133; and rebeUion losses, 

135 
Dual membership, 333 
Dufferin, Marquis of, 335, 

414 
Dunning, John, 64 
Duration of parliament, 335 
Durham, Earl of, 112, 119, 

128, 132, 145, 146, 183; 

mission of, to Canada, 95, 

96; Report of, 97-102; 

return of, to England, 97; 

and American influence 

[520] 



on Canada, icdo; and 
advantages of union, 102, 
103; as a statesman, 
IIS 

East India Company, 119 
Economist, The, 114 
Edgar, J. D., 24 n, 54 n 
Edmonton, 17, 24 
Education act of 1863, 237 
Education, in British North 

America act, 236 
Egerton, 64 n, 74 n, 87 
Egerton and Grant, 121 «, 

122 n 
Election petitions, 348 
Elections act of 1917, 324 n 
Elections, British, expenses 

of, 340 
Elections, corruption in, 178; 
holding of, 338; procedure 
of» 339> 346; expenses of, 
340, 341, 348; usages at, 
340; uncontested, 342; 
nomination papers for, 344; 
day of, 347; controverted, 
348 
Electoral divisions, settle- 
ment of, 310; inequality 
of, 314, 315; single-mem- 
ber, 316 
Electoral franchise, reform of, 
demanded, 149; left to 
provinces, 309; civil ser- 
vants debarred from, 320; 
civil servants admitted to, 
323; reforms in, 324 



INDEX 



Electoral reform in 1856, 

161 
Electors, qualifications of, 

1791, Gj; manifestoes to, 

339 
Elgin, Earl of, III, 145, 151, 
170, 179, 213; as a states- 
man, 115, 146; governor- 
general, 127, 132; his policy, 
128, 132, 138; politics of, 
129; and British connec- 
tion, 131; and respon- 
sible government, 133, 248, 
252; and rebellion losses 
bill, 134, 136; demon- 
strations against, 139, 140; 
tenders resignation, 141, 
142; his achievement, 146; 
and use of French, 153, 154 
Elgin-Marcy Treaty, 188, 432, 
447, 454, 456, 461, 466; and 
British Columbia, 55 
EUenborough, Earl of, 120 n 
Enfranchisement of women, 
an open question, 376, 377; 
in prairie provinces, 376 
Episcopal church, and clergy 

reserves, 71 
Established church, 401 
Estimates, prepared by 
cabinet, 372, 373; in house 
of commons, 418 
Excess profits tax, 416, 494 
Executive councils, 112 

Family compacts, 72, 132, 
137, 147, 168, 177; and 



corruption m government, 

83 
Farrer, James Anson, 414 w 
Federal union, inevitable, 178 
Federal v. legislative union, 

217-221 
Fielding, William S., 11, 445, 

447. 467 
Finance bill, 415; amend- 
ments to, 417; debate on, 

417 
Finance, minister of, 353 
Financial centers of Canada, 

36 
Financial year of Canada, 

378 _ 
Financiers, and government, 

37 

Fiscal freedom of colonies, 
17,442 

Fish, and reciprocity, 458 

Fish, Hamilton, 454 

Fisheries, and United States, 
460 

Fleming, Sandford, 64 n 

Flour exports, 470, 471 

Flour milling, 470 

Flour mills, 32 

Fort Garry, 52 

Fort William, 15, 19, 31, 
34, 40, 473, 475 

Forty shilling freehold quali- 
fication, 328 

Foster, G. E., 333 

France, and Canadian tariiFs, 

447 
Franchise, dominion, 317 

[521 ] 



INDEX 



Franking privilege, 279, 490 

Fredericton, 17 

Freedom of speech, and 
closure, 423 

Freedom of the press, struggle 
for, 75 

Free trade, 284; adoption 
of, by Great Britain, 147; 
and concessions to Canada, 
164, 440 

French, use of in king's 
speech, 280; use of, in 
parliament, 403 

French Canada, and separate 
schools, 236; and places in 
cabinet, 357; and the 
speakership 383; and di- 
vision of offices, 384 

Frontenac, 317 

Galleries in house of com- 
mons, 393 

Gait, Alexander, Tulloch, and 
right of tariff making, 11, 
169; and friction with 
British government, 170; 
his reply to Newcastle, 172; 
and Confederation, 189, 
191, 209, 223 

Gait tariff, 171-175, 398 

Gazette, Canada, 253 

Gazette, Montreal, 503 

George III, 414 

George IV, 414 

German tariff war, 435-444, 
and peace without victory, 
446 
[522] 



Germany, and British prefer- 
ence, 442, 443, 450 

Gerrymander, in Canada, 
310; abolished by Liberals, 
312 

Gladstone, W. E., 104, 333; 
and rebellion losses bill, 
143; and corruption in 
Canada, 259, 260 

Glengarry, address to Elgin 
from, 141 

Globe, of Toronto, 423 

Gosford, Lord, 95 

Governing class in Canada, 
72; in Lower Canada, 83 

Government bills, 415, 420; 
in provincial legislatures, 

493 

Government leader in senate, 
282 

Governor-general of Canada, 
as link with Great Britain, 
5; appointment of 6, 162; 
at Quebec, in 1792, 76; 
powers of, 81; partisan, 
84; can dissolve legis- 
lature, 124; appointment 
of, as patronage, 128; 
and reserved bills, 157; 
payment of salary of, 163; 
nomination of, 215; before 
and after Confederation, 
247; in British North 
America act, 251; duties 
of, 254; nonpartisan, 256; 
limitations on freedom of, 
264; suggestion of election 



INDEX 



of, 265; and dissolution 
of parliament, 335; and 
cabinet, 351, 373; and 
convening of parliament, 
378; and election of 
speaker, 385; never in 
house of commons, 393; 
and speech from the throne, 
402; and speaker of house 
of commons, 420; and 
disallowance of provincial 
legislation, 496 

Governor-in-council, 253; and 
rights of minorities, 240 

Governors-general, list of, 
256 

Grain, and railroads, 473, 

474 

Grain crop, 35 

Grain growers, and American 
interests, 32; organization 
of, 47; and agitation 
against titles, 367; and 
British preference, 440; 
political movements of, 
441; and reciprocity, 457, 
460, 463; and Sir W. 
Laurier, 463, 464 

Grain Growers' Guide, 367 n, 
441 n 

Grain growing, beyond Great 
Lakes, 35; increase of, 44; 
importance of, 45 

Grain handling, charges for, 

34 
Grain harvests, and pros- 
perity, 31 



Grand Trunk Pacific Rail- 
way, 42, 50, 57 

Grand Trunk Railway, 34, 
36; double tracking of, 

474 
Grants to railways, 473 
Granville, Earl of, 207 n 
Great Britain, and Canadian 
taxation, 173; and Hudson 
Bay Co.'s territory, 186; 
welcomes Confederation, 
186; and responsible gov- 
ernment for Canada, 261; 
denounces treaties for sake 
of Canada, 442; and Brit- 
ish preference, 447 
Great Lakes, 14; climate on, 
19; and prairie provinces, 
31; warships on, 187 
Grenville act of 1770, 349 
Grey, third earl, 136, 141, 
153, 256; and Elgin's offer 
of resignation, 142 
Grey, Sir George, 157 
Grey, fourth earl, and co- 
operation, 264 
Grits, 168 

Halifax, 17, 24, 33, 37, 43, 
I39» 163; and legislative 
assembly of 1758, 64, 76, 
251 

Hamilton, 24, 45, 106, 150, 
167, 169 

Harpell, James J., 42 n, 46 n 

Head, Francis Bond, 85, 92, 
122 

[523] 



INDEX 



Head, Sir Edward Walker, 
governor-general, 170, 171, 
179, 252; and Confeder- 
ation, 190 

Herries, J. C, 143 

Hill, printer, 75 

Hincks, Francis, 177 n 

"Hiving the grits," 311 

Holland, trade with, 471 

Homesteads, 479 

"Honorable," 362 

House of Commons, Domin- 
ion, and money bills, 250, 
409; membership of, 305; 
representation of provinces 
in, 305, 306; and election 
of speaker, 385; organi- 
zation of new, 385; seat- 
ing of members in, 390; 
rules of, 400; procedure 
in, 401, 402, 409, 410; 
quorum of, 401; atten- 
dance in, 401; select stand- 
ing committees of, 407; 
and supply, 418; and 
obstruction, 421 

Howe, Joseph, 75 

Hudson Bay, 14, 474 

Hudson Bay Company, 16, 
24, 53; and the Bridge, 
41; and immigration, 43; 
end of rule of, 54; territory 
of, 59; Lower Canada and, 
185; and United States, 
188; and crown lands, 233 

Hume, Joseph, 119 

Hustings, 327 

C524] 



Immigration, 27, 478; into 
prairie provinces, 43; Do- 
minion rights over, 216; 
Chinese, 234; legislation 
concerning, 234; propa- 
ganda, 23 s, 473; expendi- 
tures on, and corruption, 
258; and National Policy, 
430; and British prefer- 
ence, 451; polyglot, 478; 
and Ontario, 481 

Immigration and coloniza- 
tion, minister of, 354 

Indemnities, for members 
of parliament, 279 

Independent political move- 
ments, 480 

India, 59 

Industries of United Kingdom 
and Canadian tariffs, 175 

Ineligibility for parliament, 

334 
Inland revenue duties, 416 
Inland revenue, minister of, 

354, 363 

Institute of chartered accoun- 
tants, 497 

Intercolonial Railway, 259, 

299. 359, 471 
Interior, minister of, 354; 

from prairie provinces, 359 
Intermediate tariff, 437 
Irish Nationalist party, 343 
Iron and steel bounties, 258 
Iron and steel manufacture, 

29; in Sydney, 45; and 

National Policy, 469, 470 



INDEX 



Italy, and British preference, 
442,449 

Jamaica, 119, 127 
Japan, trade with, 471 
Johnson, President, 202, 205 
Journals of parHament, 401 
Judges, appointment of, 498, 

499 
Judicial committee of privy 
council, 495; and separate 
schools question, 245 
Judiciary of Canada, 499 
Justice, minister of, 354 

Kamloops, 50 
Kenny, Edward, 358 
Kenora, 38, 41, 50, 471 
"Kingdom of Canada," 200, 

205 
Kingston, 24, 35, 106, 113, 

120, 163 
Knighthoods, 72, 365, 366, 

369 

Labor and socialist parties, 
480; and elections, 345; in 
provincial legislatures, 488 
Labor candidates, 343 
Labor, minister of, 354 
Labouchere, Henry, 113; co- 
lonial secretary, 190 
Lafontaine, Louis Hyppolite, 

117, 120, 123, 251 
Lafontaine-Baldwin govern- 
ment, 123, 124, 133, I3S> 
136, 140 



Lake Erie, 35 

Lake navigation and United 

States, 33 
Lake of the Woods, 38 
Lake Superior, 34, 44 
Lansdowne, Marquis of, 256, 

443 

Lash, 414 n 

Laurier, Sir Wilfred, 11, 297, 
310,333,363; and separate 
schools, 244; and redistri- 
bution, 307, 315; and end 
of gerrymandering, 313; 
and cabinet, 360; and the 
grain growers, 463 

Laurier government 150 n; 
repeals Dominion franchise 
act, 323; and electoral 
reform, 324; and reci- 
procity with United States, 
336, 396, 456, 461, 462; 
and obstruction, 421, 422; 
defeat of, 465 

Lawyers, and parliament, 

331 
Legislative assembly, Quebec, 

76; made bihngual, 80; 

limitations of, 81, 8$; 

refused to vote supplies, 93 
Legislative assembly. Upper 

Canada, powerlessness of, 

Legislative council, Quebec, 
76; power of, 81; bishops 
and judges in, 85 

Legislative council, United 
Provinces, demand for elec- 

C5253 



INDEX 



tion of, ISO, 158; New- 
castle and, 160; members 
of, elected, 161, 267; num- 
ber of members of, 162 
Legislative councilors, salaries 

of, 486 
Legislative councils, disap- 
pearance of, 484; member- 
ship of, 485 
Legislative union of 1840, 
104; debates at West- 
minister on, 105; consti- 
tution of, 106 
Legislature of United Prov- 
inces, constitution of, 107; 
bilingual, 108 
Legislatures, early, 76; con- 
stitution and procedure of, 
77, 4CX); limitations of 
80; bicameral, 484 
Lemieux, Rodolphe, 424 
Le Pas, Manitoba, 14, 474 
Lewis, George Cornewall, 87 
Liberal-Conservatives, 168, 

284 
Liberal convention of 1859, 

19s 
Liberals, 343; after Con- 
federation, 284; and the 
senate, 288, 302; and the 
gerrymander, 312; and 
electoral franchise, 320; 
and Dominion franchise 
act of 188s, 322; and 
electoral reform, 324; and 
the tariff, 398, 417, 434 
Lieutenant-governors, as 

[526] 



links with Great Britain, 5; 
appointment of, 6, 253, 
483; and resignation of 
premier, 488; salaries of, 
491; terms of, 491; non- 
partisan, 491; duties of, 

492» 493 
Links of empire, 364, 434, 49^ 
Lisgar, Lord, 314 
London, O., 106 
Lord Chancellor, 280 
Lome, Marquis of, 128 n, 

2SS. 414 
Lower Canada, 67, 74; and 
constitutional development, 
75; legislature of. In 1792, 
79; and import duties, 81; 
corruption In government 
of, 82; and governing class, 
83; population of, in 1838, 
loi; and disputes with 
Upper Canada, 102; repre- 
sentation of, 106; con- 
cession to, in 1848, 152; 
overrepresentatlon of, 184 

" Loyahst," 75 

Lucas, Sir C. P., on crown 
colonies, 7 w, 82 w; on 
Durham, 115 

Lumber, and reciprocity, 457 

Lytton, Bulwer, colonial sec- 
retary, 191 

Macdonald, Baroness, first 
Canadian peer, 73 n 

Macdonald government, 362, 
431; and Canadian Pacific 



INDEX 



Railroad scandal, 260; 
members of, 352 
Macdonald, Senator, 278 n 
Macdonald, Sir John A., 11, 
297, 332, 336, 363, 424; 
and Confederation, 200, 
209, 216, 223, 225; and 
electoral franchises, 318, 
320, 323; and National 
Policy, 432, 433, 466; and 
reciprocity, 458 
Mace, the, 381, 384, 391 
McGee, Thomas Darcy, 209 
Mackenzie, Alexander, 297, 

335. 336, 363, 412, 414 
Mackenzie government, 453 
Mackenzie, William Lyon, 
rebellion of, 10, 89, 94, 
122, 138, 145, 269; life of, 
91, 92, 93; amnestied, 94 
McKinley tariff, 466, 467 
MacLean's Magazine, 367 n 
Magdalen Islands, 486 
Magna Charta, as advertise- 
ment, 449 
Mails, 416 

Maine, and Confederation, 
201; resolutions against, 
from, 202 
Maisonneuve, 314 
Manhood suffrage, 325 
Manitoba, 14, 31, 41, 186, 
188, 212, 297, 474; created 
a province, 16; climate of, 
18; and crown lands, 56; 
and divorce, 166; and 
federal union, 217; and 



separate schools, 239; 
representation of, in house 
of commons, 305; and 
the cabinet, 358; and 
enfranchisement of women, 
376; and British prefer- 
ence, 440; and bicameral 
system, 484; scandals in, 
502 

Manitoba school question, 
243. 374 

Manufacturers, British, pro- 
tests of, 171 

Manufacturers, Canadian, 
and protection, 30, 170, 
437; and the preference, 
435. 452; and British 
trade, 438; more protec- 
tion for, 440, 467; and 
reciprocity, 457, 461 

Manufacturing in Canada, 
29; first impulse towards, 
27; influenced by United 
States, 28; and National 
Policy, 469 

Marine and fisheries, minis- 
ter of, 354 

Maritime Provinces, climate 
of, 18; and union, 21, 219; 
economic interests of, 22; 
immigration into, 27; and 
crown lands, 56; and union 
in 1864, 74, 198; and 
Confederation, 180; union 
of, urged by Moore, 182; 
and overtures for Con- 
federation, 195; and jeal- 

[527] 



INDEX 



ousy of United Provinces, 
283; divorce courts in, 
287; and exclusion of 
civil servants from fran- 
chise, 320; and protection, 

432 
Marriage, power over, 230, 

232 

Melbourne administration,9S; 
and Lord Durham, 97 

Member of house of com- 
mons, resignation of, 349; 
attendance of, 401; oppor- 
tunities of, 425 

Merritt, of Lincoln, 183 

Metcalfe, Sir C. T., 118, 124, 
128, 153, 252; life of, 119; 
policy of, 120, 121, 126; 
and election of 1844, 125 

Metcalfe commission, 134, 

13s 
Michigan, Lake, 15, 163, 164 
Mileage allowances, 279 
Militia and defense, minister 

of, 3 54 
Mines, minister of, 354 
Minister of finance, 353; 
his statement to parlia- 
ment, 415 
Minister of public works, 353 
Minister of railways and 
canals, 353; from New 
Brunswick, 358 
Minister of trade and com- 
merce, 353 
Ministers without portfolio, 
361, 390 
[528] 



Minorities, safeguards for, 240 
Minto, Earl of, 256 
Molesworth, Sir William, 156 n 
Monck, Viscount, governor- 
general, 179, 252; and 
Confederation, 208 
Moncton, 42, 359 
Money bills, originating in 
lower house, 136; in legis- 
lature, 249; and senate, 
286; and the cabinet, 373; 
procedure on, 409 
Montgomery's tavern, 94 
Montreal, 24, 26, 33, 34. 37» 
79, 106, 132, 150, 167, 360; 
as financial center, 36; 
population of, 45; and 
governing class 72; bad 
municipal government in, 
500 
Moore, Colonel, 182 
Move to reduce salary, 361 
Mowat, Oliver, 209, 290 
Mulock, Sir WiUiam, 311 n 
Municipal code for United 

Provinces, 109 
Municipal elections, 346 
Municipal government, 500 
Municipal ownership, in prai- 
rie provinces, 48 
Municipalities, and Act of 

Union, IC9 
Munro-Ferguson, 114 
Musgrave, General, 56 n 

Natal, a crown colony to 
1893. 3 



INDEX 



National debt of Great 
Britain, and dominions, 4 

National grain route, 19, 
430; improvements to, 35, 
36 

National Policy, 169, 457, 
463, 466; definition of, 
430; beginnings of, 431, 
434; and McKinley tariff, 
466; results of, 469, 477, 
479; and industries, 479; 
and farmers, 479, 481; 
and high cost of living, 
481 

National Policy tariffs, 432 

National Transcontinental 
Railway, 42 

Navigation laws, 162, 163; 
right to make, 215 

Navigation laws, United 
States, 33 

Navy, British, and Canada, 
163 

Navy Island, Niagara River, 

94 

Nelson, B. C, 50 

New Brunswick, manufactur- 
ing in, 29; and crown 
lands, 56; government es- 
tablished in, 66; and politi- 
cal demands of United 
Empire Loyalists, 66; and 
constitutional development, 
74; and hemp bounties, 
174; adopts Confederation 
resolutions, 2CX); and Con- 
federation, 211; and sepa- 



rate schools, 241; and the 
senate, 270; representation 
of, in house of commons 
305; and the cabinet, 358 
and iron industry, 470, 
and bicameral system, 484 
and separate schools, 498 
scandals in, 502 

Newcastle, Duke of, 161 
170, 292; and colonies, 
130; colonial secretary, 
155; and Canadian re- 
forms, 158, 159; and pro- 
tection, 171; and tariff of 
1859, 174, 176 

Newfoundland, 59, 213; and 
protection, 4; area of, 
13; population of, in 1783, 
60; and Confederation, 
275; and fiscal freedom, 

443 

New Glasgow, 477 

Newport News, 35 

New South Wales, 61; and 
responsible government, 
145; and protection, 176 

Newspaper organs, 393, 395; 
and reciprocity in 191 1, 
396 

Newspaper press, 262; and 
the senate, 291 

Newspapers, political rewards 
for, 394; and reporting of 
parliament, 399; and criti- 
cism, 429 

New Westminster, 50, 57 

New York, 35 

[529] 



INDEX 



New Zealand, 59, 146, 166; 
and the British connection, 
129; and responsible gov- 
ernment, 145; and pro- 
tection 176; and fiscal 
freedom, 443; and British 
preference, 448 
Niagara, 75, 106; and meet- 
ing of legislature of Upper 
Canada 78 
Nomination papers, 344 
Nordegg, 42 
North Bay, Ontario, 38 
North, Lord, 63 
North Sydney, 45 
Northwest Territory, 16 
Norway, trade with, 471 
Nova Scotia, 327, 371, 43°; 
climate of, 19; manufac- 
turing in, 29; and crown 
lands, 56; and United 
Empire Loyalists, 63; gov- 
ernment of, in 1758, 64; 
and constitutional develop- 
ment, 74; and tariffs of 
United Provinces, 175; and 
Confederation resolutions, 
200; and Confederation, 
211; and separate schools, 
241; and the senate, 270; 
representation of, in house 
of commons, 305; fran- 
chise in, 325; and plural 
voters, 329; and coal, 433; 
and iron industry, 470; 
and manufacturing, 471; 
bicameral legislature of, 

[530] 



484, 485; and separate 
schools, 498; municipal 
government in, 501 

Nova Scotian, 75 

Oaths, of members of parUa- 
ment, 379 

Obstruction in house of com- 
mons, 421-423, 462 

Ogdensburg, 33 

Ontario, 213, 430; climate of, 
18; economic interests of, 
22; antagonism of, to 
Quebec, 23; and manufac- 
turing, 26; and immigra- 
tion, 27; and protection, i 
30; and prairie prov- 
inces, 31; and crown 
lands, 56; and divorce, 
166; and Confederation, 
211; and separate schools, 
236; and the senate, 270; 
and divorce bills, 287; 
representation of, in house 
of commons, 305; and 
the cabinet, 357; and 
wheat, 433; and British 
preference, 440; and manu- 
facturing, 471; abandons 
bicameral system, 484; gov- 
ernment of, 489; municipal 
government in, 501 
Open questions, 376 
Opposition leader, 352; elec- 
tion of, 386; salary of, 
387, 388 
Orders-in-council, 254, 372 



INDEX 



Ottawa, 23, 139, 283; foun- 
dation of, 24 

Pakington, Sir John, 156 

Palmerston, Lord, 113, 130 

Falmerston-Russell adminis- 
tration, 170 

Papineau, Louis Joseph, re- 
bellion of, 10, 86, 93, 117, 
153, 269; life of, 89, 90; 
success of, 95, 145; return 
of, 137 n 

Parliament, British, and re- 
bellion losses bill, 144 

Parliament, Dominion, and 
creation of provinces, 16; 
and divorce, 166; as con- 
tinuation of United Prov- 
inces legislature, 284; and 
electoral divisions, 3 10; 
duration of, 335; time of 
assembling of, 378 

Pariiamentary candidates in 
United Kingdom, Cana- 
dians as, 330 

Parliamentary reform, move- 
ment for, in England, 91 

Parliamentary secretaries, 

354. 363 
Party conventions, 339 
Party lines in Canada, 263; 

after Confederation, 284 
Party names in Canada, 148 n 
Patronage of the crown, 163, 
267, 295; and revision of 
electoral rolls, 321; titles 
as, 366; and independent 



political movements, 480; 

and legislative councils, 485 

Patrons of Industry, 343, 480, 

481 
Payne-Aldrich tariff, 461 
Payne, Sereno E., 450 
Peel, Sir R., 87, 104, 117, 

143, 153 
Peerages, 73, 365-370 
Pensions for ex-cabinet minis- 
ters, 389 
Pensions for government offi- 
cials, abolition of, de- 
manded, 150 
Philadelphia, 35 
Pitt, 69, 71 

Plural office holders, 85 
Plural voter, in Canada, 328 
Political parties, not recog- 
nized by law, 346 
PoHtics, popular interest in, 

399 
Pontiac, 317 

Population of Canada, 305; 
and railway mileage, 473; 
slow increase, of 477, 479 
Pork barrel, in Canada, 85 
Port Arthur, 15, 19, 34, 40, 

41. 475 
Port Jackson, 61 
Portland, 32, 33, 43 
Port Nelson, 14, 474 
Port Roseway, 63 
Postmaster general, 354 
Prairie provinces, 29, 30; 
and Ontario and Quebec, 
31, 45; and immigration, 

[531] 



INDEX 



43; crops of, 44; and the 
tariff, 45; politics of, 48; 
parliamentary represen- 
tation of, 49; forward 
policies of, 218; railway 
lands in, 473 

Preferential tariff for United 
Kingdom, 434, see British 
preference 

Premier, and cabinet, 351, 
3SS-3S7» 359; and con- 
ferring of titles, 365; and 
legislation, 420 

Premier, British, and for- 
mation of cabinet, 355 

President of council, 352 

Press gallery, in house of 
commons, 39; and prefer- 
ment, 397 

Press gallery, in senate, 291 

Prices in Canada, 41; of 
grain, 45 

Prime minister, see Premier 

Primogeniture, abolition of, 
demanded, 149 

Prince Edward Island, 31, 
305, 327; and crown lands, 
56; and United Empire 
Loyalists, 63; and fish 
bounties, 174; and Con- 
federation, 211; and sepa- 
rate schools, 241, 498; and 
the senate, 270; and the 
cabinet, 358; and single- 
chamber legislature, 485 ; 
municipal government in, 
SOI 
C532] 



Prince Rupert, 42, 50, 57 

Private bills, 415; definition 
of, 428; in provincial 
legislatures, 499 

Private members' bills, 415; 
definition of, 428; in pro- 
vincial legislatures, 493 

Privilege, question of, 427, 
429 

Privy council at Whitehall, 
Canadian members of, 363 

Privy council for Canada, 

251. 338, 361, 364. 371; 
members of, in parliament, 
390 

Procedure of house of com- 
mons, 401, 402, 409, 410 

Procedure of senate, 284, 285 

Progressive Republican 

party, 434 

Property qualifications, abo- 
lition of, demanded, 149, 
158 

Protection in Canada, and 
United States, 28, 30; 
movement for, 167, 168; 
adopted by Liberals, 395; 
and National Policy, 430, 
431; and British prefer- 
ence, 438; increases in, 440; 
and high cost of living, 482 

Protective tariff, demand for, 
151; Liberal opposition to, 
394; as dividing line in 
poUtics, 398; before Na- 
tional Policy, 431; Domin- 
ion committed to, 434 



INDEX 



Protectorates, and colonial 
ofl&ce, I 

Provinces, North American, 
i6; area of, 17; represen- 
tation of, 17, 272 

Provinces, power to create, 
212; and representation in 
house of commons, 309; 
and electoral franchises, 
3"» 318 

Provincial governments, and 
grants to railways, 473; 
and advertising, 478; defi- 
nition of, 483; dependent 
on parliamentary majority, 
488; formation of, 489; 
salaries of ministers in, 
490; revenues of, 493 

Provincial legislatures, pow- 
ers of, 231; members, of, 
and Dominion cabinet, 
356; membership of, 486; 
salaries of members of, 
487; terms of, 487; party 
lines in, 488; procedure in, 
492; powers of, 494; checks 
on, 494 

Public Advertiser, 75 

Public opinion in Canada, 
262 

Public works, minister of, 

353 
Puget Sound, 50 

Qualifications, for mem- 
bers of legislative council, 
161; for voters, 319, 325, 



327; disappearance of, 328; 
for members of house of 
commons, 329 

Quebec, economic interests 
of, 22; antagonism of, to 
Ontario, 23; manufactur- 
ing in, 26; rural economy, 
of, 26; and immigration, 
27; and prairie provinces, 
31; and crown lands, 56; 
and United Empire Loyal- 
ists, 63; and constitution 
of 1774, 64; and divorce, 
166; and Confederation, 
211; and legislative union, 
220; and separate schools, 
236, 240; and the senate, 
270; representation of, in 
house of commons, 305; 
and redistribution, 308; 
and electoral franchise, 326; 
and plural voters, 329; 
and the cabinet, 357; and 
iron and steel bounties, 
430; and the iron industry, 
470; and manufacturing, 
471; bicameral legislature 
of, 484, 485 

Quebec act of 1791, 69, 82; 
and number of provinces, 74 

Quebec City, 17, 24, 106, 139, 
163; legislature meets at, 
in 1792, 79 

Quebec convention, 199; in- 
dependence of, 208; con- 
stitution of, 209; and 
distribution of powers, 224 

[533] 



INDEX 



Queen Anne, 414 

Queen Victoria, 88, 96; and 
Canada, 24; and colonial 
governors, 113; and Sir 
Charles Bagot, 118; and 
Sir C. T. Metcalfe, 125; 
and Lord Elgin, 127 

Questions in Parliament, 426 

Quorum of house of commons, 
401 

Rails, steel, 470 
Railway building, 471, 473 
Railways and canals, minister 

of, 353 

Railways, and corruption, 258; 
and government grants, 473, 
494; mileage of, 473, 475 

Readings of bills, 410, 411 

Rebellion losses bill, 134, 
138, 139; and British ( 
parliament, 144 

Reciprocity with United 
States, 163, 174, 395, 398; 
endangered by Gait tariff, 
174, 175; denunciation of 
treaty of, 187; in 1911,336, 
396; and obstruction, 421; 
in National Policy, 430, 
431, 432; movements for, 
4S4» 4S5> 459; and Cana- 
dian tariffs, 455; over- 
tures for, from Canada, 
456, 459; overtures for, 
from United States, 461; 
opposition to, in 191 1, 462; 
in wheat and flour, 467 

[534] 



Red chamber, 280 
Redistribution act of 1882, 

310, 341 
Redistribution act of 1914, 

18 
Redistribution, after census, 

306, 307, 309; principle 

of, 308; in 1903, 312; in 

1914. 314 
Reforms, demand for, in 

Upper Canada, 148-15 1; 

and British parliament, 

160 
Regal chair, 255 
Regina, Sask., 17, 26 
Registrars of deeds, ineligible 

to parliament, 334 
Reporting of parliamentary 

debates, 397 
Reserved bills, 157, 214 
Residential qualification for 

members of parliament, 

330, 332 

Resolutions, preceding bills, 
415, 416 

Responsible government, de- 
fined, 2; development of, 
9; granted to dominions, 
12; granting of, iii, 163; 
and Sir C. Bagot, 118; 
and Sir C. T. Metcalfe, 120; 
and Robert Baldwin, 124; 
in United Provinces, 127; 
and Elgin, 133, 139; on 
trial, 142; and Earl Rus- 
sell, 144; extended in 1850, 
14s; conceded to United 



INDEX 



Provinces, 164; or military 
rule, 176; definition of, 
248; based on usage, 249; 
and corruption, 259; and 
Canadian leadership, 260; 
and people of Canada, 
261; from 1840, 487; in 
provinces, 495 
Retaliation, against Ger- 
many, 445 
Returning officers, 339, 342, 

348 
Revelstoke, B. C, 50 
Rhodes, Edgar, 381 n 
Riddell, Justice, 65 n, 67 n, 71 
n, 261 n, 409 n, 414 n; on 
United States Supreme 
Court, 499 
Ridings, county divisions, 316 
Robertson, Senator J. E., 

278 n 

Robinson, Sir John Beverley, 

first Canadian baronet, 

73 w 

Roebuck, J. A., 116, 119, 207 

Roll call of house of commons, 

401 
Roman Catholic church, and 
Quebec constitution of 
I774> 65; and American 
Revolution, 65 
Roman Catholics, as electors, 
69; and separate schools, 
236, 240, 244, 24s, 497; 
in Canada in 1867, 238; 
and the cabinet, 358 
Rose, attorney-general, 168 



Rossland, B. C, 50 
Rouges, Liberals, 148 
Royal assent, 412, 419 
Royal commission, 429 
Royalties, mining, 416, 494 
Russell, Lord John, 104; 
and Act of Union of 1840, 
no; and Earl of Elgin, 
127; and rebellion losses 
bill, 143; and responsible 
government, 145; and Con- 
federation, 221 
Russell administration, 136 

St. Denis, 94 

St. John, 24, 33, 43 

St. John River, 66 

St. Lawrence, 14, 460; and 
development of Canada, 
IS 

St. Lawrence canals, 36, 147, 
151. 475 

St. Lawrence ship channel, 
36, 475 

St. Michael and St. George, 
order of, 363 

Salisbury, Marquis of, 333, 
443 

San Francisco, 187 

Saskatchewan, 14, 31, 41, 
186, 188, 212, 474; created 
a province, 16; climate of, 
18; and crown lands, 56; 
and divorce, 166; and 
federal union, 217; and 
separate schools, 239, 243, 
374; and the senate, 270; 

[535] 



INDEX 



representation of, in house 
of commons, 305, 309; 
and the cabinet, 358; and 
enfranchisement of women, 
376; and British prefer- 
ence, 440; and single- 
chamber legislature, 485 

Saskatoon, 44 

Sault Ste. Marie, canal locks 
at, 35; and steel rails, 
470, 475 

Scandals at Ottawa, 257, 258; 
in municipal government, 
502 

Schools, in Upper Canada 
in 1867, 237 

Schools, separate, see Sepa- 
rate schools 

Scotch immigration, 27 

Second chambers in Canada, 
289, 292, 303 

Secretary of state, 354 

Secretary of state for external 
affairs, 352 

Sectarian schools, 236 

Select standing committees 
of house of commons, 407; 
powers of, 408 

Senate, Dominion, 267; and 
elective principle, 268; and 
money bills, 269; appoint- 
ment to, as patronage, 270, 
293, 295; use of, 272, 303; 
bills rejected by, 272, 299; 
an independent body, 277; 
seating of members of, 
281; and the cabinet, 282; 

[336] 



procedure in, 284; divorce 
bills in, 284, 286, 303; and 
tariff legislation, 286; num- 
ber of bills in, 286; as 
revising chamber, 288; its 
place in Canada, 289; 
agitation against, 291; no 
office holders in, 292; and 
house of commons, 296; 
first appointments to, 297; 
adverse majorities in, 297; 
docility of, 299; vacancies 
in, 300; applicants for, 300, 
301; party service by, 303; 
and speech from throne, 
402; and finance bills, 418 

Senatorial divisions of Que- 
bec, 268, 270, 271 

Senators, qualifications of, 
267; number of, 273, 275; 
appointments of, to break 
deadlock, 275; tenure of, 
276, 277; resignation of, 
278; vacation of seat 
of, 278; payments to, 278; 
age of, 294; periods of 
vigilance of, 298 

Separate schools, 236, 244, 

24s. 374» 497 
Sergeant at arms, 280, 378, 

383,384 

Sheep industry, 44 

Sheffield, 171 

Sherbrooke, 106 

Sheriffs, ineligible to parlia- 
ment, 334; and elections, 
337 



INDEX 



Shipbuilding in Canada, 35, 

477 
Sifton, minster of interior, 

374 

Simcoe, John Graves, 78 n 

"Six months' hoist," 410 

Slavery forbidden in Upper 
Canada, 78 

Smith, Goldwin, 262 n 

Soap, duties on, 168 

Socialist movements, 480 

Solicitor-general, 354, 363 

Sorel, Quebec, 79 

Soulanges, 314 

South Africa, Union of, 443, 
448 

Southampton, 129 

South AustraUa, and pro- 
tection, 177 

Speaker, British, 379 

Speaker of house of commons, 
378, 379; choice of, 380; 
duty of, 382; patronage 
of, 382; election of, 384; 
and governor-general, 420 

Speaker of house of repre- 
sentatives, 380 

Speaker of legislative council, 
158 

Speaker of senate, 280, 295 

Speakerships, as spoils, 295 

Spectator, The, Hamilton, 168 

Speech from the throne, 284, 
402 

Speeches, time limit for, 403, 
422 

Spoils, political, 295, 296 



Stages of bills, 411 

Stanley, Lord, Earl of Derby, 

104, 121, 126, 205, 256 
State church, attempt to 

establish, 70 
State departments, 363 
Stickene River, 299 
Stimson, 71 n, 105 n 
Stony Plain, 42 
Strathcona, Lord, 439 n 
Strong, Sir Henry, 215 
Stuart, John, 165 n 
Subsidies to railways, 494 
Subventions to provinces, 493 
Sudbury, Ontario, 40 
SuppUes, voting of, 415 
Surtax, German, 446 
Sword, girding with, 328 
Sydenham, Lord, 97, iii, 

112, 119, 120, 128, 145, 

179, 248; life of, 113; 

character of, 115 
Sydney, N. S., 45, 175, 436; 

and steel rails, 470 
Sydney, New South Wales, 

61 

Tache-Macdonald govern- 
ment, 197 
Taft, William H., 225 n, 461 
Tariff, dividing line in poli- 
tics, 47; schedules of, 436; 
and commercial treaties, 

447 
Tariff duties in Canada, 109, 
150, 162; right to enact, 
165, 166; rates of, in 1856, 

[537] 



INDEX 



167; and reciprocity with 

United States; 455 
Tariff for revenue only, 417 
Tariff of 1870, 432; discon- 
tent with, 433 
Tariff policy of Dominion, 

37; enunciated by Gait, 

172 
Tariff preferences, 4 
Taxation, imposing of, 415; 

resolutions for, 415, 416 
Teslin Lake, 299 
Textile industry, 37 
Thomson, Poulett, Lord 

Sydenham, 97 
Thompson, premier, 363 
Thornton, British minister, 

4S4 
Three Rivers, 26, 79, 106 
Tilley, Samuel Leonard, 209 
Titles, new attitude towards, 
365; bargains for, 366; 
agitation against, 367; 
minute of council against, 
368 
Toronto, 17, 24, 37, 106, 123, 
150, 167, 360; as financial 
center, 36; population of, 
45; and governing class, 
72; became capital, 75; 
as capital, 489 
Toronto East, 316 
Toronto West, 3 16 
Toryism in Canada, 84 
Townshend, Thomas, 64 
Trade and commerce, minis- 
ter of, 353 

C 538 ] 



Transport policy of Do- 
minion, 37 

Transport system of central 
Canada, 29 

Treasury bench, 392 

Treaties, British, and Do- 
minion of Canada, 215, 
442 

Treaties, commercial, ap- 
pointment of plenipoten- 
tiaries for, 10; and British 
preference, 442 

Tupper, Sir Charles, 11, 198, 
332, 363, 458 n; and Con- 
federation, 209, 226; and 
separate schools, 245 

Two Mountains, 3 17 

Two-party system, 343 

Underwood-Simmons tariff, 
467 

Union of Quebec and On- 
tario, 10 

United Empire Loyalists, 
61, 168; exodus of, from 
United States, 62; settle- 
ment of, in Canada, 63; 
and Quebec constitution, 
64; and New Brunswick, 
66; and Family Compacts, 
72; and United States, 84 

United Farmers of Ontario, 
4S0 

United Provinces, constitu- 
tion of, 105; legislature of, 
106, 112, 154; political 
civilization of, 146; and 



INDEX 



tariiF laws, 147; develop- 
ment of, 147; and British 
cabinet, 152; and clergy 
reserves, 156; and amend- 
ments to constitution, 157- 
159; concessions to, 163; 
rights assumed by, 164; 
protection in, 168, 432; and 
Confederation, 180; dead- 
lock in, 189; and sugges- 
tions for Confederation, 
195; instability in, 197; 
adopt Confederation reso- 
lutions, 200; dominant in 
Dominion parliament, 283 

United States constitution, 
compared with British 
North America act, 227 

United States, influence on 
Canada, 9, 166, 180, 465, 
467; between 1820 and 
1837, 83; in 1838, 99; 
and protection in Canada, 
169,465; equality of treat- 
ment of, 177; opposition 
of, to Confederation, 200; 
mistakes of, emphasized, 
224; and British prefer- 
ence, 44.9, 450; and reci- 
procity, 454, 455 

United States supreme court, 

499. 
University representation in 

Canada, 315 n 
Upper Canada, 74; created 

in 1791, 67; constitutional 

contribution of, 75; and 



British law, 78; and im- 
port duties, 81; corruption 
in government of, 82; 
population of, in 1838, 
loi; and disputes with 
Lower Canada, 102; repre- 
sentation of, 106; political 
development of, 147; re- 
formers of, 148; discontent 
with representation of, 183; 
and defense of northwest 
provinces, 188 
Upper chambers, 74 

Vancouver, 24, 51, 57 

Vancouver Island, description 
of, 49, 50; history of, 54 

Van Dieman's Land, 61; 
and responsible govern- 
ment, 145 

Veto power, 414, 495 

Victoria, 17, 24; description 
of, 49-51; and protection, 
176 

Wages, of members of parlia- 
ment, 69 

Wages, of senators, 278 

Wallace, 62 n 

Ways and means, committee 
on, 415 

Weaver, Emily, 64 n 

Welland canal, 35, 147, 151, 

475 
Wellington, Duke of, 87, 104, 
143; and Sir C. Bagot, 
117; maxim of, 265 

[539] 



INDEX 



West Australia, a crown 

colony, to 1890, 3 
West Indies, and British 

preference, 448 
Wheat growing in Ontario, 

433 
Whigs, and Canadian con- 
stitution of 1774, 64 
Whips, party, 401, 402, 429 
Whitemouth, Manitoba, 42 
Whitney administration, 490 
Wilberforce, 156 
William IV, and colonies, 95 
Willsun, UcckUs, 439 n 
Wilson, James, 1 1 3 
Winnipeg, 17, 24, 41, 42, 



314, 471; formerly Fort 

Garry, 52 
Woolen duties and British 

preference, 452 
Wrecking, reciprocity in, 460 
Writs, for elections, 338, 348 
Wrong, Professor, 290; and 

the senate, 294 

Yale, Caribou, 317 
York, now Toronto, 75 
Young, Sir John, governor- 
general, 207 n 
Yukon, territory of, 16; and 
representation in house of 
commons, 305 



[540] 



-0 \V'2 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 373 548 



l<(4ii 



if it 



' ' 'pi m' !'* 

' ' i* \ t i 1 1 1 ' ■ 



■*■', 



